Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Dorneywood

Norman Baker: Pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2006, Official Report, columns 818-9W, on Dorneywood, what the names are of those guests visiting in an official capacity registered in Dorneywood's visitors book since 1 May 2005.

John Prescott: The visitor books belong to the Dorneywood trust and are not Government documents. I believe that they include the details of visitors going back many years, who are mostly personal guests. Successive Ministers of various Governments have used Dorneywood mostly for that purpose rather than for official visitors.

Norman Baker: I do not understand the Deputy Prime Minister's reluctance to give us the information. Even the Prime Minister, who is not known for being straight with answers, tells us who has been to Chequers. I should have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister would want to tell us about the heads of state and important people whom he has been entertaining—or are all the visitors working-class mates whom he invited over for croquet?

John Prescott: That was a particularly cheap question. This House's concern is public expenditure, and no public expenditure was involved with any of those who have been visitors at Dorneywood during my time—particularly where there have been personal visitors, I have paid the bill, and properly so. I do not think that such matters are accountable to this House, which has been the position with all previous Cabinet Ministers who have used Dorneywood. I reiterate the point that the visitors book is the property of the trust. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed his reputation in this House for being famously boring, as  The Times has said.

Beijing Olympics

Gordon Prentice: Whether he plans to visit the Beijing Olympics in 2008 in an official capacity.

John Prescott: Ministerial attendance at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing has not been finalised. I can, however, give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will not compete in any of the events. He may be aware that I visited the site of the Beijing Olympics in February this year, which included a meeting with Premier Wen and the mayor of Beijing, to discuss how to improve the links between our capital cities, and how to ensure a truly sustainable legacy for the Olympic games in both cities. I have since written to the mayor of Beijing setting out some proposals on that "sustainability bridge", and I have also discussed the ideas with the Mayor of London, who visited Beijing himself in April for further discussions on Olympic links between London and Beijing.

Gordon Prentice: That was a very good answer. My friend carries a heavy responsibility for the UK's relationship with China, and I know that he met a high-level delegation from the National People's Congress last week. Will he tell the House what was the most significant thing that came out of his discussions with the representatives of the National People's Congress?

John Prescott: The significant thing about my visits to China, of which there have been nine since we have been in government, is that they have been about relations between China and the United Kingdom, which have improved considerably—I am prepared to accept that that was not solely due to my actions. I discussed those relationships and other matters, such as human rights, with the delegation mentioned by my hon. Friend. I think that those discussions have led to an improvement, and I look forward to further visits to China for further discussions.

Greg Hands: The Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will remain in his position as long as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) remains Prime Minister. If he is going to attend the Beijing Olympics in an official capacity, does it mean the Prime Minister will still be there? And if so, has anyone told the current Chancellor of the Exchequer?

John Prescott: I did not say that.

Colin Challen: If my right hon. Friend gets to China for the Olympics, and I hope that he does, even if he is not competing, I hope that he will speak to the Chinese authorities about building sustainability into planning for the Olympics. We must learn how to make major international events truly sustainable to mitigate the impact on climate change, a subject in which he is clearly well versed.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend has made a good point. In the discussions with Premier Wen and the mayor of Beijing, we considered establishing principles for the Olympic villages in London and Beijing to reflect sustainability and environmental targets. We have reached an agreement, and I hope that the two Olympic sites will show the Olympic movement that it is possible to build villages that meet the highest levels of sustainability and environmental objectives.

William Hague: If the right hon. Gentleman gets to the Olympics, will he convey the message from all parties that we are proud to have the 2012 Olympics in this country? Will he respond to the deep disappointment on both sides of the House that he will not take part in either the boxing or the croquet, which used to be an Olympic sport, particularly bearing in mind law 1(c) of the rules of Oxford croquet—when a player has scored enough points, he is officially described as "pegged out" and has to be removed from the game? Would it not be fairer to the British taxpayer if he were now removed from the game?

John Prescott: I will obviously leave others to make judgments about that. With regard to the croquet, the set was provided by the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Members of my Department wished to play croquet, and I think that we enjoyed the game, quite frankly. I know that a lot was made of it being during working hours, but I notice that there are not many people here today during working hours. Perhaps some are at Ascot, and the  Daily Mail will be there photographing them— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, you must be quiet. You must allow— [Interruption.] Order.

Dennis Skinner: Tell the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to shut his mouth.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will tell no one— [Interruption.] Order. I tell the hon. Gentleman to be quiet. I will put it much more politely than he is putting it. He has got to be quiet.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is getting very childish. He has got to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question. Is the Deputy Prime Minister fine with his answer?

John Prescott: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Good. I call Andrew Gwynne.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Third Sector

Andrew Gwynne: If she will make a statement on the relationship between the Government and the third sector.

Edward Miliband: The new office of the third sector will build on steps taken since 1997, including significantly increased resources and the compact on joint working, to ensure that we can support the third sector's role in all aspects of our national life, whether it is helping to deliver public services, running social enterprises, or campaigning for social justice.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome that answer, not least because we have some very good and active third sector and community organisations in Tameside and Stockport. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that in working with the third sector, Government and councils make it clear that they will not abdicate their responsibilities to fund those services adequately, but, as in my constituency, work in partnership with the third sector to deliver those improved public services?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The third sector can play an important role in innovating and getting close to the user, which the public sector sometimes cannot. For Labour Members, the fact that we have increased public spending since 1997 to deliver improved public services is absolutely consistent with an increased role for the third sector in delivery. Using the third sector is not about Government abdicating their responsibilities to fund public services adequately.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister look at the situation concerning voluntary and charitable organisations whereby a person who serves in different categories has to be checked with the Criminal Records Bureau on every single occasion? Is not that over-bureaucratic and unnecessary?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Lady raises an important point about the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau in relation to volunteers. One of the important things about the CRB is that volunteers do not get charged for having the check done. She is right that there is a balance to be struck between the necessary protections that we need and ensuring that it is not done in a bureaucratic way. We are working with the CRB on streamlining the process for the voluntary sector and will continue to work on that in the coming months.

Jim Devine: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to listen to campaigning bodies such as Make Poverty History? Does he further agree that it was an absolute disgrace that last week, when we supported the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on the practical application of making poverty history, the Scottish National party was not represented?

Edward Miliband: I agree with my hon. Friend about the role that campaigning organisations play. I hope that there can be consensus about this in the House. I was concerned to see the remarks by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who is not in the House today, and who said of Make Poverty History:
	"My concern is that if everybody comes together for one movement you get only one concept prevailing and it locks out alternative thinking."
	In my view, Make Poverty History, as an umbrella group for the development movement, was incredibly effective and led to the massive strides that have been made in the past couple of years on debt and development.

Oliver Heald: I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that the Conservatives are very supportive of Make Poverty History. Will he acknowledge the role of social enterprise in tackling social exclusion, creating jobs, and delivering public services? Does he agree that there is a strong case for increasing the scale and scope of social enterprise by creating social enterprise zones? Will he look at ways of removing barriers to the expansion of the sector by simplifying often complex and fragmented funding flows by offering longer-term contracts and creating a more level playing field at the community level? How can any of that be achieved when eight Departments—according to research by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)—do not monitor and refuse to keep central records of their contracts with the third sector?

Edward Miliband: That was a long and complicated question. [Hon. Members: "Answer it."] I will. The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative party is united behind Make Poverty History, but the man appointed to be in charge of social justice for the party said that it locked out alternative voices. That does not sound like unity behind Make Poverty History.
	There has been a big growth in social enterprise in the past eight or nine years, partly because of what has been done. That includes the Phoenix fund, the support for community development finance institutions and the work of regional development agencies. Part of the role of the new office of the third sector is to bring together the work on social enterprise in one Department so that there is a further increase in social enterprise in the coming years.

Social Exclusion

Stephen Hepburn: What steps the Government have taken to tackle social exclusion arising from child poverty since 1997.

Hilary Armstrong: The Government's drive to end child poverty by 2020 is based on work for those who can, financial support for families, excellent public services and support for parents in their parenting role. That strategy has lifted 800,000 children out of poverty since 1997.
	However, the Government will never be satisfied until we have eliminated child poverty and we are now refocusing our efforts on those who have yet to benefit.

Stephen Hepburn: We always rightly argue that the best pathway out of poverty is work. Yet, in South Tyneside, four out of 10 children have no parent in work. What will the Minister do to create special measures for South Tyneside to solve the problem?

Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the role of worklessness in tackling child poverty. There are specific problems in South Tyneside—as he knows, I know the area well. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform so that we can work with people in South Tyneside—for example, employers and other partners—to get people into work and to sustain them in work, thus enabling them to lift themselves and their children out of poverty. Tackling worklessness and inactivity, especially among those on benefits, remains our top priority and we are determined to work on that so that all children, including those in South Tyneside, get the life chances that they deserve.

Matthew Taylor: I am glad to hear that the Minister is not satisfied with the Government's record—she has considerable reason not to be. The Government have already missed their target for cutting child poverty and there is not one hon. Member who has not experienced cases in their surgery of poor families who are hit by demands for thousands of pounds because of Government failures in the tax credit system, which place people in extreme poverty. Is it the system that needs changing or the Ministers in charge of it?

Hilary Armstrong: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. He knows that we are not satisfied and we will continue to strive to do better. I know that he respects the academic John Hills from the London School of Economics, whose recent book states:
	"The package of support for low-income working families with children is now one of the most generous in the world."
	That has been critical to tackling the problem. The hon. Gentleman also knows that tax credits benefit 6 million families with 10 million children. In total, 20 million people live in households that benefit from tax credits. Of course we want to do better. I look forward to his working with us to ensure that we can eliminate child poverty.

Barbara Keeley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of adequate and affordable child care is a key issue, and that its absence is a possible barrier to parents moving into work? Although there has been a substantial increase in such child care under this Government, will she work with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that its provision continues to improve and increase, so that that barrier can be removed?

Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Child care provision under this Government has increased substantially, and we have put in place a framework to enable access to child care for every family throughout the country. The Sure Start programme has played an important part in achieving that. We particularly want to enable lone parents to get back into work, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) highlighted, worklessness is a particular problem for lone parents. So we will continue the drive to increase the opportunities for the children of lone parents, and child care is part of that package.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Admiralty House

Peter Bone: What the estimated cost to public funds is of his official residence in Admiralty house for 2006-07.

John Prescott: The cost will be accounted for in the Department's annual report and accounts in the usual way, as with previous Governments.

Peter Bone: The Minister for Europe is being evicted from Admiralty house. Why is not the Deputy Prime Minister joining him?

John Prescott: That is a choice that has presumably been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe. I will be staying in that house. It goes with the job that I am doing, and I think that it is effective—[Hon. Members: "What job?"] I would make the point to the hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty hires out rooms in Admiralty house for 200-odd events a year, both public and private. I am aware that none has been hired out to any modelling agencies. I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman looks like the England manager, Sven, he worked for a modelling agency. But I believe that he did not get any bookings. Perhaps after last night's result, he will get a few more. We congratulate the England team.

William Hague: Will the Deputy Prime Minister remind us who said:
	"It is obscene that priority is given to their second homes over housing the homeless",
	when talking about ministerial residences in 1994? Given that it is now apparently Government policy to re-allocate the homes of the dead after they have been left empty for a time, is it not time to re-allocate the homes of the politically dead? That would involve the whole of Admiralty house. Is it not a bit rich for the taxpayer to have to pay to hold at bay the scramble in the Cabinet to take over the Deputy Prime Minister's job?

John Prescott: I own one house—that has always been the case—and one car, not two. But we just have to live with the image presented by the press and put forward in this House from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about taking over homes, and the Department has just made an announcement on that issue. It involves houses that have been empty for years. We are attempting to improve the streets, but in some cases we do not know who owns the house in question. In other cases, the owners have refused to improve the property. We have now decided to take over the management of such houses, improve them and bring them up to the standards that we want for those homes. They will then become available to the owners if they wish to take them back. The payment for the improvements will come from the rents that we will impose on them. This is about the management of those properties, not their takeover, and it will improve the areas that we are talking about.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about the politically dead, perhaps now that he has been confirmed as the senior member of the shadow Cabinet, he will remove from his website the statement that he is still the leader of the Conservative party. Perhaps he will also tell us how successful he will be in getting an agreement for his party to come out of the European People's party, a job that he has been given but has so far failed to achieve.

Policy Development

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What areas he has identified as priorities for improving the effectiveness of policy development across Government.

John Prescott: I have begun to implement a new way of working for the Cabinet Committees that I chair, with the express purpose of improving the cross-working between Government Departments, as the Prime Minister has asked me to do. As the House will be aware, the Prime Minister has written to the Secretaries of State asking them to identify the key challenges ahead and how they propose to deliver the necessary results. Tackling these challenges will clearly require cross-departmental agreement on how to drive forward change, and I will be closely involved in that.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I am also aware that he is the lead negotiator on Kyoto, so what is he doing to ensure that Government Departments are complying with the Kyoto agreement and doing all they can to address issues of climate change?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out Britain's contribution to the Kyoto agreement. I am pleased to see that former Vice-President Gore is in the UK and I am looking forward to meeting him tomorrow so that I can proudly tell him how the Government have not only met the Kyoto target established then, but at twice the level, which is quite an achievement. We need to talk more about the post-Kyoto agreements and I believe that every Government Department has more to do in order to achieve the target that we set for ourselves—a 60 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels by 2050. I shall be calling the Departments together and we have already had our first meeting with the Secretaries of State to see how Departments can do more to achieve those targets. Also on the agenda is reaching agreement on the EU emissions trading scheme, which has to be decided by next week.

David Evennett: Since the Deputy Prime Minister's role was reduced, the Government seem to have been in increasing trouble. Does he believe that his new policy role has helped or hindered the Government?

John Prescott: Governments go through difficulties from time to time and the hon. Gentleman must have had some experience of that with Tory Administrations. I would point out that we have won three general elections, and with policies that will deliver, we are on our way to winning the fourth.

Equal Pay

Sharon Hodgson: What plans he has to discuss equal pay across the public sector with Cabinet colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

John Prescott: The House will be aware that it was a Labour Government who introduced the landmark Equal Pay Act 1970 and the minimum wage, opposed by Conservative Members, which led to pay increases for over 1 million women. Since 1997, we have introduced further measures to combat discrimination: the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2006, all of which set down new rights for many people.
	There remains more to do to tackle the problem that women who work full time still earn 13 per cent. less than men who work full-time.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. Does he agree that, although at least Labour Members are committed to equal pay and equality in general, a lot more needs to be done, as he said, to address the inequalities that unfortunately still exist?

John Prescott: I agree absolutely that more needs to be done, as was made clear in Margaret Prosser's Women and Work Commission report. An awful lot needs to be done, which is why we are paying careful attention to her recommendations. My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Court is due to rule on an important case—the Cadman case—relating to the issue of whether the length of service in pay scales discriminates against women. The judgment will have significant consequences for Departments and we recently held discussions in the Cabinet Committee to find the best way forward. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, but much remains to be done and the Cabinet Committee is working to achieve it.

John Bercow: Given the Government's laudable commitment to equal pay for work of equal value, why is the gender pay gap among part-time employees higher in the public sector than in the private?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Since the 1970 Act was passed, Government Departments have not done as much as they could to close the gap. It is necessary to act now because each Department has different pay negotiations and different ways of dealing with the problem. We need to make some changes to achieve a more common policy. More cross-government activity is needed and it is my job to try to achieve it.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Digital Divide

Meg Hillier: What steps the Government are taking to reduce the digital divide between the elderly and the rest of the population.

Patrick McFadden: The Government's goal, as set out in their national digital strategy published in April last year, is to be the first nation to close the digital divide. A specific commitment of the strategy is to improve accessibility for digitally excluded groups such as the elderly. We have also made Government funding available for various digital inclusion initiatives, including significant funding through the new deal for communities for the Shoreditch Digital Bridge initiative in my hon. Friend's constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week.

Meg Hillier: I am delighted that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to visit the Shoreditch Digital Bridge project last week. What lessons can be learned from that about rolling out the best parts of that practice to other constituencies where there is a big digital divide, as there is in Hackney, South and Shoreditch?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This agenda is about not just technology, but power. That is why initiatives such as the Digital Bridge are important; why the Government have 6,000 UK online centres around the country, giving access to new technology; and why we have an important digital challenge project, which has shortlisted 10 projects to increase the use of new technology in the community, and we will name an overall winner early next year.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Vincent Cable: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 June.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Vincent Cable: Would the Prime Minister add to his engagements a prison visit to respond to the criticism of Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, who said that for the Prime Minister to demand more and longer custodial sentences is incoherent when prisons are chronically overcrowded and prisoners are being released prematurely, and to heed Lord Ramsbotham's advice that the best contribution that the Prime Minister can make to the sentencing process is, in his words, to shut up?

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation, but it will not surprise him when I say that I do not agree with that. It is worth pointing out, however, that there are more people in prison, and there are more prison places. The amount of time that people are spending in prison is longer, but when there is justifiable concern about sentencing, it would be very odd if we as politicians did not raise it.

Dan Norris: Most people feel that fathers need to play a greater role in bringing up their children. What are the Government doing to support that?

Tony Blair: We are doing a number of things. First, obviously, we have introduced family-friendly policy that has allowed paternity leave for the first time, that has expanded maternity pay and that has expanded maternity leave. There are, of course, also extra places in nursery provision and in child care. And, of course, there are the Sure Start places. I want to make it clear that Labour Members are fully in favour of Sure Start—we believe that it does an excellent job—and I hope very much that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will withdraw his criticism of the Wythenshawe Sure Start, which I also believe is doing a superb job for its local community.

David Cameron: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would back Conservative proposals for tougher sentences for knife crime. He said that there were difficult issues. This week, the Home Secretary announced that he would work with us to strengthen the law. Will the Prime Minister confirm that that will be done before the Violent Crime Reduction Bill completes its passage through Parliament?

Tony Blair: In fairness, I think that what I said was that I would consider that, but that there were difficulties with it. Those difficulties can be overcome, and we are perfectly happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to get the legislation through the House as quickly as possible.

David Cameron: I am delighted that we are going to work together on knife crime .[Interruption.]
	In January, I asked the Prime Minister—this is another area where we can perhaps work together—to think again on Government proposals to force police forces to merge. That huge distraction has already wasted police time and taxpayers' money. On Monday, the Home Secretary—who is now keeping up a running commentary, I am pleased to see—accepted our arguments for a review. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the very least, no forced amalgamations will take place until after that review is complete?

Tony Blair: No. It is important, obviously, that we listen to the concerns that are expressed by people, and we said that we would. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not got a complaint about that, but my understanding is that his shadow spokesman on law and order has said that we should not proceed with any such merger at all. I do not agree with that. As the Home Secretary says, we should take greater time to consider the representations that have been made to us; but for all the reasons that were given, not least by the inspector of constabulary, there is a good case for considering this proposal, and that is why it would be wrong for us as a Government to rule it out.
	Incidentally, while we are talking about how we can work together on law and order, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw what he said last week in the House, which was that the person in the Sweeney case would be released earlier as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That is completely wrong. As a result of that Act, he can be given an indeterminate sentence, which is why he will now not be automatically paroled.

David Cameron: I think the Prime Minister should concentrate on his own Ministers, who have been giving a completely conflicting version of events.
	I am glad that the Prime Minister is being flexible, and is prepared to back down. We read today of a review of the entire Home Office. Will the Prime Minister ensure that it includes consideration of suggestions for long-term improvements in security, including our proposal for a single border police force? Unlike forced mergers, which are opposed by police chiefs, that proposal is now backed by the Metropolitan police, by the former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and by the Labour-controlled Select Committee on Home Affairs. Will the Prime Minister join the growing consensus?

Tony Blair: Of course it is important for all the long-term issues involving the Home Office to be considered very carefully. The reason why we have opposed a single border agency force is simple: having put in an immense amount of money and extra staff, we believe that the best way of dealing with such matters is through intelligence-led operations, which have proved extremely successful. It is true that we need to do much more, and we are looking at that, but if we want to protect our borders properly, the electronic border system that we are introducing will be important. I should also say that if we want to keep track of people in this country, in the end we will have to face up to the difficult decision on identity cards. If the right hon. Gentleman is still against that, he cannot be serious about ensuring that we know exactly who is and who should be in our country.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to know who is still here, he should not have abolished embarkation controls. In a week when a senior chief constable has said that policy is being made on the hoof— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be allowed to speak.

David Cameron: In a week when a senior chief constable has said— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Hon. Members: "He is wrong."] Being wrong does not deny a Member the right to speak in the House. If that were so, very few Members would be able to speak.

David Cameron: There are now so many former Home Secretaries shouting that it is quite difficult to keep track.
	In a week when a senior chief constable has said that policy is being made on the hoof, real strategy has been abandoned and professionals are in despair, it is clear that real change is needed at the Home Office. The Prime Minister has had nine years and countless initiatives. Can he honestly blame people for concluding that he has taken his eye off the ball, that he is out of touch, and that he cannot be the right person to sort things out?

Tony Blair: While we are on the subject of former Home Secretaries, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman—and I think this is why my right hon. Friends were shouting at him—that the Home Secretary who began the process of removing embarkation controls was his predecessor as leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I do not think that that was a very wise point to make.
	As for the Home Office, as a result of the changes that have been made crime is down, there are record numbers of police, asylum claims are now processed far more quickly, and we have reduced the number of asylum claims dramatically over the past few years. I agree that it is important to establish whether we can go further. I merely say to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that I hope he will not do what he has done before, which is to attack us in public for not being toff—tough enough— [Laughter]—or even toff enough! Whether toff or tough, the fact is— [Interruption.] I do not think we should get involved in a competition in that regard.
	Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says in public about our policy on law and order—when he tries to suggest that we have not been tough enough—what he actually does in the House and, in particular, with his colleagues in the other place is vote against each and every measure that is necessary.
	Incidentally, while we are on that subject, the right hon. Gentleman should correct something else that he did last week. He tried to suggest that the Sentencing Guidelines Council was the reason why he voted against the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Actually, he was in favour of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and his party's spokesman at the time said that it was "admirable". The reason why Conservative Members voted against the 2003 Act was the issue of withdrawal of trial by jury—on which, incidentally, they were also wrong. It was not because the measures were too soft; it was because they were too tough.

David Cameron: After nine years, three huge majorities and 54 pieces of criminal justice legislation, is it not the case that the Prime Minister has no one to blame but himself?

Tony Blair: And it is as a result of those measures that crime is down, after doubling under the Tories. They cut police numbers, whereas we have raised them. It is as a result of the antisocial behaviour legislation that we have a chance to deal with antisocial behaviour, but the right hon. Gentleman voted against that legislation. The next time we bring forward measures in this House, the test will be whether he and his colleagues are prepared to vote on the basis of what they say. Given his past record, they will not do so.

David Cameron: If it is all going so well, why has the Home Secretary said that his Department is not fit for purpose? Today, he is trying to revamp the whole of his failing Department.

Tony Blair: Of course, as the Home Secretary rightly said, there are huge challenges, such as organised crime and illegal immigration. If we are to tackle them, we need measures such as the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which toughened up the sentences for violent and sexual offences. However, what did the right hon. Gentleman do when that was before the House of Commons? He voted against it. So when we bring forward the new measures, he will be on test, as will his leadership and his party.

Chris Mole: Does my right hon. Friend welcome last week's introduction of environmental performance certificates for domestic dwellings? They will ensure, for the first time, that people buying a home will have the same information about its environmental performance as they would have about a fridge that they wanted to buy. Does he regret the opposition to the introduction of home information packs, of which the certificates will form a key part, because that opposition ignores the packs' impact on the environment and because the HIP will be the most efficient way to get EPCs in front of consumers?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right, and HIPs have been welcomed by the National Consumer Council. Denmark is one of the countries that have introduced the packs, where they have been immensely successful. We are giving them a dry run this year, and they will be introduced fully next year. He is absolutely right as well about the energy saving requirements that will be part of the pack. This country is introducing that information some two years earlier than the European directive stipulates.

Menzies Campbell: Can the Prime Minister recall a time when there was as much acrimony as there is now between the Home Office on the one hand, and the police and judiciary on the other? How is that to be resolved?

Tony Blair: It is to be resolved, I hope, by meeting the public's genuine concerns about the shortcomings of the criminal justice system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a general question about the Home Office and judges, but if the public knew the Liberal Democrats' voting record in this House on law and order policies, they would not give him or his colleagues the time of day on the issue.

Menzies Campbell: I am happy to defend my voting record, and the Prime Minister should defend his, given what he said when he was in opposition. As a result of the events of the past few weeks, is not it clear that we need wholesale reform of the Home Office, including the creation of a separate ministry of justice?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with that at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he and his colleagues are proud of their voting record, but I should like to see the leaflets that the Liberal Democrats put around during the recent local elections saying how proud they were that they voted against the antisocial behaviour legislation. Let him show me the leaflets saying how they voted against the powers to close crack houses, and against antisocial behaviour orders and the drunk and disorderly provisions. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows me those leaflets, I will pay some attention to what he says.

Gordon Prentice: A year ago, my friend told us that a decision to replace Trident would have to be made in this Parliament. Would not it be an absolute outrage if billions were squandered on a new generation of nuclear weapons without a vote in the House?

Tony Blair: As I think I said before, there should be the fullest possible debate on the issue. I am sure that there will be and that, yes, the decision will have to be taken in this Parliament.

Jo Swinson: Does the Prime Minister agree that whatever his Government's views on nuclear power, it is the Scottish Executive who will decide whether to allow the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland?

Tony Blair: Of course, as a result of devolution those decisions will be taken in accordance with the legislation that outlines the respective powers of the Scottish Executive, the UK Parliament and the UK Executive. I point out to the hon. Lady that Scotland has nuclear power stations now, and a large part of the whole country's electricity depends on them.

David Borrow: During the European summit last week, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to meet members of the Dutch Christian Union party, which is against the election of women, or members of the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom party, which is against foreigners working in schools— [Interruption.]—or indeed members of the Polish Civic Platform party, which wants to reduce workers' and trade union rights?

Tony Blair: Actually, I did not have the chance to meet them, but it is unwise of Opposition Members to shout and bawl, since those are their new partners in the European Union.

John Randall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are as delighted as I am to find out that the Government have appointed a liveability Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell me who that Minister is, and what is liveability?

Tony Blair: Liveability is the ability of local communities to be free from crime and fear, which is precisely why we introduced legislation. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that one, but it would not surprise me if they did— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Nia Griffith: What can my right hon. Friend say to sufferers of mesothelioma and their families in my constituency and elsewhere, in view of the devastating message that they received from the Lords recently?

Tony Blair: We are well aware of the serious concern about that matter and, as a result, there will be an amendment to the Compensation Bill, which will, in effect, reverse the ruling in that recent case. That is extremely important because otherwise many thousands of people would suffer unnecessarily. Along with what we have done for miners' compensation over many years, that is an indication that we recognise that there are people in this country who have worked very hard and suffered grave and debilitating illnesses as a result. It is right that we stand by them and protect them.

Peter Bone: The England team manager has announced not only the day that he will retire but who his successor will be. Has the Prime Minister anything to learn from that?

Tony Blair: No, I am still trying to catch up with his wages.

Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Liberal and Tory-controlled Luton council is ending school uniform grants, thus hitting the poorest families hardest? Will he consider making school uniform grants compulsory and does he agree that, while the Government are getting on with tackling child poverty, the Opposition just pose?

Tony Blair: It is important that we continue to support some of the poorest families; as a result of the policies, for example, in relation to child tax credit, hundreds of thousands of the poorest families receive that help and protection. I very much hope that we continue to give support through the children's tax credit. I think that I am right in saying that something like 3 million of the 7 million poorest families actually pay no income tax at all as a result of the help that we are giving them. In our judgment, that is the right way to help some of the poorest families to cope with their difficulties. What my hon. Friend says in relation to the Conservative and Lib Dem-controlled council does not surprise me at all; they do that in many other places.

David Heath: The Prime Minister yet again tried to sound terribly tough earlier, but let us look at his performance. Recommendations made after the Dunblane shootings 10 years ago have not yet been implemented. Recommendations made after the Soham murders four years ago have not yet been implemented. Recommendations made after the King's Cross disaster 17 years ago have not been implemented.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should get to the point.

David Heath: I will, and it is this: what sort of tabloid campaign would it take for the Government to put in place key recommendations before further tragedies, instead of expressing regret afterwards?

Tony Blair: We are actually implementing those recommendations, but let me just explain to the hon. Gentleman—since he gives me a chance to say this again—some of the measures that the Liberal Democrats have voted against.  [ Interruption. ] He cannot complain that we are not being tough enough and then object when I point out that when we introduced measures that, for example, allow us to give indeterminate sentences to violent and sexual offenders, he and his colleagues voted against that legislation. I am very sorry, but if he wants to raise these issues, he will get that reply.

Anne Begg: Will my right hon. Friend join me and the vast majority of Scottish people in condemning the wanton violence perpetrated on my constituent, Ian Smith, in Aberdeen yesterday, just for wearing an English top and flying a small English flag on his car? While accepting that people can be passionate about football, does he agree that that incident besmirches the reputation not only of Aberdeen, but of the tartan army, who can travel the world without attacking supporters of opposing teams?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right both in what she says and the tone in which she says it. I am sure that everybody condemns what was an appalling and totally unjustifiable attack. In fairness to the football fans from England, as well, the vast majority of them behave extremely well. The way in which the present World cup is being conducted is absolutely excellent and it is a great tribute not just to the German authorities, who are conducting it and in charge of it, but to the English fans who have travelled there. I pay tribute to all those who lawfully and properly are football supporters. She is absolutely right in what she says about that particular case.

Michael Ancram: Given the tremendous work of reconstruction carried out by our brave troops in Iraq over the past three years, but given also the fact that there is a fast-diminishing prospect of further positive achievement in the face of the growing sectarian violence in that country, is it not time now, with honour and dignity and pride, to bring our troops home?

Tony Blair: No, it is not, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that, because I know that he supported the presence of British troops, and I say this in no disrespect to him at all. The fact is, at long last, we have for the first time ever in Iraq a fully elected democratic Government bringing together the Sunni, the Shi'a and the Kurds. They are the people who are the democratic representatives of the Iraqis today. Their view—all of them, incidentally, said this to me when I was in Baghdad recently—is that they want us to stay and see the job done, because there is difficulty in Iraq today not because the British authorities have fallen down on the job, or even, frankly, the Iraqi authorities, but because there are people there who want to terrorise and to stop democracy taking root for some of the same sorts of reasons that see those people engaged in criminal or terrorist acts the world over. We have to understand that the fight there, as in Afghanistan, is part of the wider struggle against that type of global terrorism. The worst message that we could send—I say this with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is that we are going to walk away when the people who are democratically elected want us to stay. We stay and get the job done, and I believe that that is the British way.

Michael Clapham: When the law in the Barker case has been reversed, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a fast-track scheme to make speedy payments to mesothelioma sufferers and their families?

Tony Blair: I will certainly look very carefully at my hon. Friend's suggestion, because I know that he has worked very hard, both on those cases and on the miners' compensations cases. I will not give him a reply straight away, but I will look at the matter carefully and get back in touch with him.

Jeremy Wright: A month ago, I wrote to the Home Secretary—so far I have not had a reply—about a foreign prisoner who should have been deported in February, at the end of his sentence. In fact, he was deported on 11 June. That delay has cost the taxpayer £20,800. Given that the Home Office has told me that there are 450 others in immigration detention who have finished their sentences, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will ensure that they are deported more quickly and at less cost to the taxpayer?

Tony Blair: I can only look into that particular case, because obviously I do not know about it. There can be reasons why people are not immediately deported that are to do with the country to which they are being returned. It is quite important that before we take it as read that a person immediately goes once there is a deportation order, we realise that there can sometimes be reasons why they are not returned immediately that have nothing to do with the immigration authorities or the Home Office. The important thing is that such people should be in custody until the moment at which they can be returned.

Alan Simpson: In Berlin, 80 per cent. of the new buildings that are going up are generating their own energy. In the Netherlands, energy is generated from motorways, schools, health centres and even car parks. A whole eco city is being built in China, but in the UK, not one of our major spending Departments, with the exception of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is investing in energy self-generation. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to the climate change issue, will he get his civil servants to look at generating some energy about generating their own energy?

Tony Blair: Actually, the Chancellor announced that we are putting significant sums into microgeneration. I cannot remember the exact amount, but we are spending somewhere in the region of several hundred million pounds on research into renewable energy. My hon. Friend is quite right about the interesting things that are happening in other countries, as is the case here. When the energy review is published, he will see that as well as dealing with the difficult issue of nuclear power, there will be a great emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy. The frank and brutal truth is that we will have to act through a whole range of measures to ensure that we can both guarantee energy supplies and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Philip Davies: Stephen Ayre was a convicted murderer who was released early and went on to abduct and rape a 10-year-old boy in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the way to tackle overcrowding in prisons is not to release dangerous people out on to our streets early, but to build more prisons so that prisoners can serve their sentences in full?

Tony Blair: First, I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about what was obviously a shocking crime. I agree that we are providing more prison places precisely because those who need to be in prison should be in prison. However, I point out that as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, such people can now be given indeterminate sentences, in which case they are not automatically paroled, but released only when they are no longer a danger to the community. It was precisely because of cases such as the one that he mentioned that we introduced the provision, and I think that I am right in saying that almost 1,000 people have been subject to it.

Emily Thornberry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Members of both Houses, of all parties, who went on the MPs' bike ride today as part of bike to work week?

Tony Blair: Yes—uncontroversially. I think that yes is the only safe answer to that.

Andrew MacKay: Why has it taken the Prime Minister nine years in office to decide to review the problems with the workings of the Home Office?

Tony Blair: It is not as if an immense amount has not been done already, for the reasons that I gave earlier. For example, there has been a lot of criticism about the immigration and nationality directorate for perfectly understandable reasons, but let us be clear about the situation that we inherited and what now happens. It used to be the case that the average asylum application— [ Interruption. ] I am explaining what we have done in nine years, so the right hon. Gentleman should listen.
	An asylum application used to take 20 months, but the average time in the vast majority of cases is now two months. We used to remove only one in five failed asylum seekers, but we now remove more than the number of unfounded applications that come in. Unlike the previous Government, who were about to sack people from the immigration department, we have increased the numbers to deal with the situation. That is what we have done in nine years, and we will do more over the next nine.

Robert Wareing: On Monday last week, my right hon. Friend met the leaders of big corporations such as Tesco and Sainsbury to encourage them to join the boards of foundation hospitals. When is he going to call to No. 10 Downing street some of the representatives of the people who know something about the national health service—I would suggest representatives of the Royal College of Nursing and the trade unions involved in the health service? When is my right hon. Friend going to stop the privatisation by stealth of the national health service?

Tony Blair: Actually, it will not come as any surprise to my hon. Friend to know that the trade unions from the NHS have often been in Downing street in the course of the conversations that we have had over many years. Indeed, "Agenda for Change", which was welcomed by many of the trade unions, was developed in partnership with them.
	My hon. Friend talked about members of the private or independent sector coming into Downing street. They came to a meeting with chief executives of NHS hospital trusts to discuss how, on things like procurement, the NHS sector could learn from the independent sector. The people who spoke up for that type of partnership and engagement were not actually the politicians; it was the people working in the NHS. I think that where we can get the right partnership between the independent and voluntary sector and the public sector, we should have it, but it is all according to one principle, which is NHS care free at the point of use.

Points of Order

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can give me some guidance. In an answer on 24 May, the Prime Minister told me that
	"a new £32 million hospital opened in March 2005—the...Honeybourne specialist rehabilitation and recovery centre."—[ Official Report, 24 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 1477.]
	In a question answered by the Secretary of State for Health—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to stop the hon. Gentleman there. The answer that a Minister gives is nothing to do with the Chair. He will have to table more questions to get the clarification and answers that he wants, as he already knows.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 11 May, urging her to review a decision that she had taken on the location of a critical care hospital, in which she had overruled the recommendations of local managers and clinicians in the health community. I have not had even an acknowledgment of that letter.
	On the substance of my point of order, the right hon. Lady is now being judicially reviewed, and you will have heard yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the frustrations of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) at not being able to arrange a meeting with Health Ministers. I am proposing to table a named day question to try to find out when I am going to get a reply to my letter and a response to the issue that I raised, but the Department of Health comes up constantly in complaints to you because Members of Parliament cannot get a reply out of it. Is there anything that you can do to get that Department, above all others, to answer our inquiries?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that he will act on it.
	I have a bit of good news. Since the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the hon. Member for Chorley not being able to get his meeting, I am sure he will be very pleased to know that because the hon. Member for Chorley raised the matter on the Floor of the House, he has been able to get his meeting.

Daniel Kawczynski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A young girl in Shrewsbury in my constituency has been raped by a failed African asylum seeker. I have been trying hard to find out the person's immigration status by repeatedly asking questions of the Home Office through the Table Office, but to no avail. Will you advise me on how I can find out that information?

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry that that terrible incident happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I repeat that perseverance is the most important weapon that a Back Bencher has. The hon. Gentleman must keep asking the questions, seek Adjournment debates and ask the Ministers concerned for a meeting; he is entitled to do that. It is important that he, as a representative of his constituency, ensures that he leaves no stone unturned in such matters.

James Duddridge: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister said that local authorities could repossess houses if they had been empty for years. I may be wrong, but I think that he inadvertently misled the House, because it is, indeed, six months. What advice can you give on how I can go about correcting that error in  Hansard, if indeed it was an error?

Mr. Speaker: There are lots of senior Members around the hon. Gentleman. He should go to them in the Tea Room and have a word on how to go about such matters. They will be able to help him.

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister answer my question earlier and state that he was not obliged to give information about who had visited Dorneywood because no public money was involved. On 21 January 2002, he gave a similar answer about why he would not give information on that matter, but subsequently in a written answer he had to correct it, stating:
	"I regret that my answer was incorrect since there are some costs to the public purse in the Government's use of...Dorneywood".—[ Official Report, 28 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 92W.]
	Under those circumstances, the Deputy Prime Minister would appear to have inadvertently misled the House again today in giving a reason for not answering my question. Can you help, Mr. Speaker, to secure a proper answer and to have the Deputy Prime Minister correct that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot enter into the substance of the matter that he raises. I observe, however, that the resolution of the House on page 74 of "Erskine May" requires that if a Minister gives incorrect information to the House it should be corrected at the first opportunity. The hon. Gentleman can of course also pursue the matter through parliamentary questions.

St George's Day

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to designate St George's day as an annual public holiday in England; and for connected purposes.
	If 23 April were to fall on a weekend, the following Monday or the preceding Friday would be a public holiday.
	I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity once again to introduce a Bill on an issue that I sincerely believe to be dear to the hearts of so many in this country. The date of 23 April as the day of the patron saint of England means a great deal to the people of our country throughout our green and pleasant land. Sadly, it has become undervalued in recent times. When I introduced a similar Bill in autumn 2004, it was unfortunately defeated after an impassioned speech by the then Labour Member of Parliament for Hornchurch. Unfortunately for him, his constituents disagreed, remembering that to be born an Englishman is to have won the first prize in the lottery of life. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the new Conservative Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) fully supports the Bill before the House.
	Some were also concerned that the previous Bill sought to remove May day as a public holiday. Although I am still personally in favour of that idea, hon. Members will notice that in the interests of gaining cross-party support such a clause is not included in the Bill before us. I should further make it clear that I am also in favour of extending the same rights for St Andrew's day in Scotland and St David's day in Wales, but I shall leave that to other hon. Members, although I am sure that some of the reasoning that I shall put forward today is valid for all parts of the United Kingdom.
	It is not just I who wish formally to recognise the day. Many people and organisations are clamouring for St George's day to be given adequate recognition. Indeed, St George's day is fast becoming a national event. Last year, a third of members of the Trades Union Congress voted in favour of reclaiming the day for public enjoyment and celebration; unsurprisingly, the Royal Society of St George is also doing an enormous amount to promote St George's day; and if anyone was lucky enough to have visited Romford market on 23 April this year, as I was, they will have noticed that every stall displayed the cross of St George flag, as market traders proclaimed pride in their country.
	In Romford, red roses were handed out in the town centre by my local St George's committee. Flags were given away to children and live music and entertainment were provided. As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, my loyal Staffordshire bull terrier, Buster, did a walkabout dressed in the flag of St George, proving once again that he is Romford's most patriotic dog. Indeed, there was a genuine belief that people of all backgrounds wanted to celebrate the day. My local council, the London borough of Havering, ensures that the flag of St George is displayed alongside the Union flag, not only on 23 April but throughout the year. Many hon. Members will have experienced the same sense of celebration in their constituencies, as businesses, shops, schools, scout groups, charities, sports clubs and churches joined in the commemoration of England's own day.
	Many people choose to celebrate St George's day, because it represents the true spirit of England. Making it a public holiday would give all the people of England a wonderful opportunity to participate in events and parties celebrating our country. A fine example of such a practice is to be found in Ireland, where St Patrick's day—17 March—is famously celebrated. Gibraltar's national day—10 September—is a magnificent celebration not only of Gibraltarians' pride in being British but of their love of their homeland. On the Isle of Man, Tynwald day is a public holiday, with celebrations throughout the island, and the Falkland islands mark Liberation day and Battle day with public holidays and celebrations. British people everywhere else are proud to participate in the celebration of our culture, history and heritage, so why not in England? Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and scores of countries, particularly in Scandinavia, celebrate their national day in style, with great pageantry as well as great parties. In Switzerland, 1 August is a wonderful day in the calendar of that proud independent nation at the heart of Europe, with the sound of alpine horns and cow bells echoing throughout the land as the distinctive Swiss flag flies from every building and, indeed, every home. It is no accident that all those nations have a strong sense of pride in their national identity, which is a source of strength and unity in any country. I hope that England follows their example and gives our country an annual day to remember and cherish.
	There are economic advantages in celebrating St George's day. A recent study by the "Value of St George" campaign, which aims to make companies aware of the benefits of making our patron saint's day a national celebration, said that while celebrations had increased, much more could be done. It concluded that businesses across England were missing out on nearly £40 million a year by failing to celebrate their national day as much as their Irish counterparts. During the World cup, there has been a resurgence in English pride. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have shown their pride in St George by displaying the flag on their homes and bicycles. What better way to show our support, thanks and pride in our rugby team, who won the World cup, our cricket team, who won the Ashes, our Olympic team, who have won many gold medals, and our football team, who will win the football World cup, than by making St George's day a public holiday in England?
	St George's day is a day when we can celebrate Englishness, represented not only by sporting achievement but, at best, by great English heroes such as Churchill, Nelson, Wellington, Shakespeare and Margaret Thatcher, who all believed in the values of St George. Ours is a country that believes in tolerance and understanding, welcoming everyone who wants to celebrate our English way of life under the red and white banner of St George. Let us not allow our pride and enjoyment in taking part in the World cup to be forgotten in a month's time. It is time that we celebrated pride in our country, our flag and our English way of life and allowed all English men and women to celebrate their heritage and culture each and every year. Therefore, I call on all Members—of all parties, and from all regions and countries in the United Kingdom—to join me and to celebrate 23 April in order to allow England to come together and its people to celebrate the country of which we are all so proud. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Andrew Rosindell, Angela Browning, Mr. Peter Lilley, Bob Spink, Mr. Andrew Turner, James Brokenshire, Mr. Simon Burns, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Shahid Malik, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Geraldine Smith, Bob Russell.

St George's Day

Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented a Bill to designate St George's Day as an annual public holiday in England; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 20 October 2006, and to be printed [Bill 199].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[17th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	BBC

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 650-1, on Analogue Switch-off; the Government response thereto, Cm 6850; and the uncorrected transcript of evidence taken before the Committee on 13 June 2006, HC 1091-iv, on new media and the creative industries.]

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Hugo Swire: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises that the BBC is renowned throughout the world for its quality programming; further recognises the high regard in which it is held by the British public; expresses concern that the final decision over the new licence fee settlement has been delayed without adequate explanation by the Secretary of State; believes that greater transparency of the process is required to deliver value for money for the licence fee payer; expresses concern that a larger than necessary increase will undermine public confidence in the licence fee and will hit low income families the hardest; further expresses concern at the continued uncertainty over the costs of digital switchover; believes that the National Audit Office should be allowed a greater role in scrutinising the BBC's accounts; and calls for a debate on the floor of the House on a substantive Motion to approve any new licence fee settlement.
	The subject of this debate is the future of the BBC, and that is precisely what we seek to ensure—a future for the BBC that allows it to continue to fulfil its public service role to educate, inform and entertain the British public long into the future, while, crucially, also offering value for money to the taxpayer.
	It is a considerable disappointment that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is not present, not least because of events that we witnessed two weeks ago. Many Members of this House—and many in the other place—have taken a keen interest in the debate on charter renewal and in the negotiations on the BBC licence fee. However, we learned that the licence fee announcement had been postponed from the expected date in late July until some time at the end of this year not from the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House, or anywhere else in the House, but from comments she made at a recent drinks party, which  The Guardian reported.
	Can the Minister tell us why the decision was announced in that way? Can he also tell us the reason for the delay, because as yet we have received no official explanation? Indeed, it does not even warrant a statement on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website. Is the reason for the delay, as some suggest, that the recent reports by PKF and Indepen have undermined the submission made by the BBC, or has the Secretary of State simply kicked the decision into the long grass?
	All that adds to a sense that there has been a lack of transparency in how the negotiations have so far been conducted. The process has been dogged by delays and uncertainty, to the point where many of the figures submitted in the initial document are now very out of date. For example, the estimate of the cost of the move to Salford has now been reduced by £200 million.
	The recent PKF report, which was commissioned by the DCMS, was very critical of the figures used by the BBC in its submission, citing the "changing numbers" involved in the negotiations, and concluding that
	"there are areas which point towards a significant need for discussion in regard to the BBC's red book bid for the licence fee settlement."
	Given that we are talking about a settlement of £4 billion, surely the Minister will accept that the new figures must be made public, and that arguments about commercial sensitivities just will not wash.

Edward Leigh: The BBC spends more than £3 billion-worth of taxpayers' money; effectively, it is paid for by a poll tax. Does my hon. Friend not think it ridiculous that there is no proper parliamentary scrutiny of the BBC through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee? After years of campaigning we have achieved a voluntary agreement. Will my hon. Friend commit a future Conservative Government to ensuring that we get full scrutiny of the BBC, like any other spending Government Department, through the NAO?

Hugo Swire: I am very glad that my hon. Friend is here this afternoon and can take part in our deliberations; he performs a magnificent role for this House—and, indeed, for the country. I think that he will be happy with what I am about to say, because I very much agree with his sentiments.
	We have long made the case that the decision to have the debate on charter renewal and the level of the licence fee in isolation made no sense. The arguments about what we want the BBC to do and what it will cost the taxpayer are inextricably linked. Thanks to the decision to delay, we now have much more time between the two decisions. It is therefore all the more important that we have a clear picture of what the costs submitted by the BBC are, if we are to have confidence in the decision reached.
	It is important that everyone concerned—broadcasters, Parliament and licence fee payers—have a clear understanding of the negotiations. Will the Minister therefore confirm that he will make public the current figures that his Department is working with?

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend also understand that a substantial proportion of the licence fee increase includes an element for a spectrum tax? The Government have not made it clear precisely how much that stealth tax will be. Should that not be an important part of our considerations today, and the debate on the total licence fee package?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, the Secretary of State and her Department are in denial about the existence of that spectrum tax, which we know is very likely to feature rather large.
	Given that PKF made clear its belief that the savings made by the BBC could be significantly improved, can the Minister assure us that he will ensure that those efficiencies are maximised, in order to reduce the settlement?
	Another issue raised in the Indepen report was super-inflation and an over-funded BBC, leading to a spiralling of salary costs. Surely the Minister must accept that recent leaks about the pay levels of presenters only add to the argument that too generous a settlement will damage the broadcasting sector, and could lead to the BBC outspending or outgunning the opposition in a hunt to bag star names.

Gary Streeter: On payments for presenters, in what universe does my hon. Friend think that Jonathan Ross is worth £18 million? Is that not the kind of absurd and inflated contractual arrangement that really gets up the noses of our licence fee paying constituents and brings the existing system into disrepute?

Hugo Swire: A parallel universe. The Secretary of State is reported in the newspapers as saying that she thinks—my hon. Friend, and neighbour, will probably agree with her—that
	"high wage costs across the corporation need to be addressed".
	It is clearly not up to Ministers to interfere in the pay of presenters, but it is essential that the BBC management justify to licence fee payers the money that they spend. If the Minister believes, as his Secretary of State clearly does, that there should now be transparency in what the BBC pays its presenters, he will get cross-party support. So will he confirm the briefings to the newspapers, and get on with putting them into practice?
	There is huge support among the public for the BBC, but an unacceptably high licence fee will surely undermine that support. Does the Minister not accept that a settlement in excess of £180 will simply be too high for many families on low incomes? We must ensure that we get the best deal possible for the licence-fee payer.

Chris Bryant: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the fact that although many people think the licence fee a good thing, they are not convinced of that when they are unable to get the same deal from the BBC as those in many other parts of the country? In my constituency, one can get the full range of BBC services only by paying Rupert Murdoch some money for a Sky box. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is time the BBC pressed ahead with its Freesat option, which was promised a year ago but still seems not to be on the cards?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman makes his customary point, and it is a very good one. The BBC is striving to achieve universal coverage, and although it is doing a good job in that regard, it can never achieve it. It is important not only that people have a fair and transparent licence fee, but that there is as much parity as possible between what they can access—so on the whole, I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	Can the Minister not see the good sense in allowing the NAO to provide full and transparent scrutiny of the spending of licence fee payers' money? As I said, it plays an important role in bringing about a culture of efficiency and value for money. Should it not have a role in safeguarding the use of £4 billion-worth of public money?
	It is important to recognise the BBC's impact in the media world—

Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the NAO can play another crucial role at this very difficult time? As has been pointed out, there are conflicting claims about the BBC's proposed licence fee increase. If the NAO could look at those figures and the various independent reports, that would help all Members of this House to come to a conclusion.

Hugo Swire: That is precisely right: if the NAO had been involved at an earlier stage, I suspect that we would not have needed this debate today.

Edward Leigh: That is an important point. It will be said that we must preserve the BBC's editorial independence, which is absolutely right. It has also been said that the public do not want politicians interfering with the BBC, but that is not what we are talking about with regard to NAO involvement. The World Service has had the NAO looking at its books since its inception, and no one has ever suggested that the NAO has any impact on editorial independence. That is a red herring.

Hugo Swire: Again, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The NAO has examined the World Service's books for many years, and it is increasingly able, almost by invitation, to examine some of the BBC's books. But the 30 per cent. of people questioned who expressed dissatisfaction with the BBC might be more inclined to express some satisfaction if they knew that there was full and transparent accounting of where the money is going and what, at the end of the day, they are being invited to pay for.
	The BBC has established a worldwide reputation for excellence, but that does not mean that it should be involved in every possible area of media activity.

Jim Devine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: If I may, I will make some progress.
	I accept that the public gain a benefit from the BBC's involvement in the promotion of new technology, but we cannot ignore the possibility that, given its almighty spending power and commercial weight, it will stifle competitors and make it untenable for others to be profitable in newly emerging markets. If the licence fee is excessive and the measures put in place by the BBC Trust are insufficient, the potential for markets to be distorted and innovation prevented is obvious.
	The recent Beethoven downloads exercise saw the BBC make available 1 million free downloads, with a value of £8 million in the marketplace. If repeated, that could severely damage the commercial market. The BBC has already outlined ambitions to establish online communities, blogs and open access, and to become
	"the premier destination for unsigned bands and to seize the opportunities of broadband, podcasting and mobile".
	We are told that the trust and the advisory powers of Ofcom are sufficient to prevent the BBC from crowding out competition, yet the Ofcom role is purely advisory and can be ignored. We hope that that will not happen, but it is none the less concerning to hear Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, say:
	"The BBC is the only European brand that could take on Google and AOL".
	He is clearly a man with ambition, but should that be the ambition of Britain's public service broadcaster? What message does that send to all the little guys in the world of technology—let alone the big ones—about the BBC's intentions?

Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree with the proprietor of the Kent Messenger Group? He wrote to me saying the following about web services:
	"The danger is that instead of a robust local market developing with a number of local content providers, or facilitators, the BBC will be one of a very few UK players, funded as it is by the licence fee...None of the commercial media companies are against competition, if it is fair competition...However, it seems unfair if the opposition is funded by statute to the tune of approximately £89 million a year from Kent alone."

Hugo Swire: That sentiment is echoed throughout the country, as hon. Members are only too aware. That is why we are suggesting that Ofcom should have a beefed-up role, and that the task should not be left to the trust, with Ofcom in an almost advisory capacity.

Greg Clark: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the online streamed regional news coverage from the BBC, and to compare that with what ITV offers? If he does so, he will see that the ITV offering is vastly superior, and that the BBC regional news broadcast online is primitive—despite the fact that many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are going into the BBC product. Does that not exemplify the need for caution in agreeing to greater sums for digital services?

Hugo Swire: Caution would be a good watchword, with the ever-changing technology and the pace at which that technology is coming on stream. We need to ensure that we do not allow the BBC to spend tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on technology which is not competitive, not innovative or out of date by the time it is introduced.
	With that in mind, I raise the issue of the sole service licence for the wide range of content and services made available through the bbc.co.uk domain. Everything from news online, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) mentioned, to podcasting, video on demand, the BBC's new i-player, the proposed Ultra local television, and even plans to broadcast news to mobile phones, is subject to one single licence, although each will have to undergo the public value test. Does the Minister agree that the scale of the BBC's online services is now so considerable that it is increasingly absurd to group them together under one service licence?
	Returning to the subject of public service broadcasting, does the Minister agree with his colleague Lord Bragg, who said in the debate in the other place last week that ITV had been "hung out to dry"? Why are we currently debating the public service broadcasting role of the BBC and the public service requirement for Channel 4 in 2007, but not looking at the role of ITV, another key PSB provider, until 2012? Why, when we all agree about the need for plurality in the provision of PSB, have the Government singularly failed to consider PSB in the round?
	That brings me to the topic of digital switchover. On the plus side, we have a Minister whose knowledge of switching over is second to none, yet on the minus side we are still in the dark about the final costs of switchover.

David Lammy: That was very poor.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman says that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) is very poor. He is not. If that is poverty, bring on poverty.
	We are two years away from turning off the analogue spectrum, yet we still have no idea about the costs of targeted help for the vulnerable, which the director-general of the BBC thinks could cost
	"the far side of a billion".
	Can the Minister confirm that we will have a final figure for this assistance before any licence fee settlement is announced? If not, we will be writing a blank cheque.
	I have touched on only a few of our concerns about the BBC's demands for a £4 billion a year settlement. We remain concerned about the process, the impact of an over-generous settlement on the media industry, the problems of an over-funded BBC crowding out the little guy, and the desire of the BBC to enter every new market. We are unconvinced by the submissions, and we believe that we must have clarity about the figures. The debate will show the desire in Parliament to ensure that we have a strong and innovative BBC fit to meet its unique responsibilities in a rapidly changing and competitive environment. I commend the motion to the House.

Shaun Woodward: I beg to move, To leave out from "public" in line 3 to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"notes that the decision on the next licence fee settlement will represent best value and be announced in good time to take effect before the current settlement expires in April 2007; further notes that the decision-making process has been one of unprecedented public consultation and transparency and that the settlement should ensure a strong and independent BBC; further notes that the costs of switchover will be one of the considerations in setting the level of the licence fee; welcomes the strengthening of the arrangements for the National Audit Office's involvement with the BBC; and recognises that changes to the level of the licence fee are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny by the negative resolution procedure.".
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is right. I am a switcher, but just as we are switching off analogue in 2012, I hope that we will by then have switched off the Conservative party, too.
	I was extremely pleased to hear one thing from the hon. Gentleman—that he was glad to be able to support the future of the BBC. However, like a child picking a daisy and proceeding to pull every petal off until there was nothing left, he and his hon. Friends proceeded to attack it, describing it in terms of poll taxes and stealth taxes and as being over-funded. He asked us not to interfere, then asked us to interfere in the pay of presenters. As always, one contradiction followed another.
	It may be helpful if I bring some appropriate clarity to what is really happening, as opposed to the caricature presented by the hon. Gentleman, and by the leader of his party in a recent speech to the Newspaper Society, with regard to what the BBC is doing and what we are doing in the review of the charter and the settlement of the licence fee.
	The review of the BBC charter has been conducted against a background of unprecedented public consultation. From the beginning of the review at the end of 2003, we were determined that it would be the most comprehensive and open process in the history of the BBC. For the benefit of hon. Members, and to help the hon. Member for East Devon, I remind him that we have so far held three major public consultations, with more than 10,000 respondents. We have run a comprehensive research programme, inviting further responses from the public. We have held regional tours, seminars, webcasts and public meetings. During the review there have been four Select Committee reports and several parliamentary debates in both Houses. In addition, we have produced a Green Paper, a White Paper and two draft charters and agreements.
	The purpose was clear from the beginning and it remains our guiding principle to deliver the strong and independent BBC that the public want. We recognise that the BBC has a unique place in the esteem and affection of the nation. It is one of the most trusted public institutions in the country, and it is an institution with which we have all grown up. In today's debate, let us try not to play politics with the BBC. Let us recognise the role that we believe the public want the BBC to play for the future. If we get that right, we will do the right thing not just for ourselves and our respective parties, but for the public.

Greg Hands: The BBC is the largest employer in my constituency. The representations that I receive from staff show that although they are appreciative of the consultation process, they are looking for a decision and for clarity with respect to oversight and funding. Why have those key decisions been postponed? That is not good for morale in the BBC. The Minister would have the support of key staff in the BBC if he brought about some accelerated decision making.

Shaun Woodward: I shall come to the reasons for that in a moment.

Don Foster: The Minister rightly claims credit for the wide consultation that has taken place. Consultation is all very well, but what matters is whether the Government listen. Does he acknowledge that the vast majority of respondents have expressed grave concern about the proposals for the governance of the BBC? Is it not the case that the Government have so far refused to listen to any of them?

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that we have undertaken a large-scale consultation exercise, but I do not agree with his conclusions. I will deal later with the governors and the trust.

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that we need a strong BBC and that we should not fetter it so much that it is unable to flourish in future generations. Britain would sadly miss the BBC. However, in some areas, particularly in commercial radio, there are legitimate concerns about the overweening power of the BBC, as reflected in Radio 1 and Radio 2, both of which I enjoy listening to. I wonder whether the BBC sometimes crowds others out of the marketplace.

Shaun Woodward: The BBC, of course, engages in new media and new technology. People who are being asked to pay a licence fee would expect that. The questions that my hon. Friend raises are dealt with in the finalised version of the charter, which we will very shortly publish for the House. None the less, I take on board the points that he makes.

Graham Brady: Does the Minister agree that if the BBC is to continue to have national support, it is essential that it should not be too concentrated in London and the south? Will he use his good offices to try to ensure that the planned move of production to Manchester goes ahead as quickly, as smoothly and as comprehensively as possible?

Shaun Woodward: I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. He is an excellent constituency MP in the north-west, and I know how strongly he has lobbied. I am sure that he will have been pleased by last week's announcement by the governors. In the course of my remarks, I will discuss the proposed move to Greater Manchester—specifically, Salford media city.
	Whatever partisan view we may take in the course of a parliamentary debate, we should put on the record the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the BBC epitomises the best of what the nation has to offer in service industries. It commands respect around the world—indeed, it sells its programmes around the world—and has endured and evolved in the context of a vibrant, dynamic commercial sector. We should pay close attention to the charter review and involve the public because we are, after all, setting the direction of the BBC, which will inform the direction of the market for the next 10 years. We must get it right, and that includes the licence fee.

Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend directly address the crowding-out argument? The BBC crowds out the bad, the inferior and the second rate, which is exactly the kind of crowding out that we want.

Shaun Woodward: If my hon. Friend means the excellent programmes that the BBC makes, I agree absolutely. If he means the way in which the BBC appropriately gets involved in innovation so that it can compete in the global media market, that is right, too.
	The hon. Member for East Devon suggested that the Government somehow made known the date for the announcement at  The Guardian cocktail party. However, he chose to forget the fact that a specific date has never been set for the announcement of the date for settlement of the licence. There is a date by which the announcement must be made, which is early next year, but I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that, despite the jokes and caricatures, he is simply wrong. Throughout the process, we have made it clear that the figure will be produced by the beginning of next year. We have always said that, although if we can produce the figure more quickly, we will.
	What matters is that we get the fee right. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one wants absolute certainty that value for money has been obtained, that the bid has been taken to pieces and that the figure is right, but then say that it would be far better to publish the figure tomorrow. What matters is getting it right for the BBC and for the licence fee payer. The settlement will not be driven by inappropriate pressure or haste. Trying to play politics with settling the licence fee by arguing for an early settlement is not in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents or of viewers throughout the country.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) raised specific questions about BBC funding, particularly in relation to the licence fee, and the heart of the matter is the cost of the spectrum charge. One reason why we called the debate is that the figures used to calculate the licence fee are ambiguous. Will the Minister take the opportunity to discuss who will pay the spectrum charge and how it will relate to the taxpayer and the BBC?

Shaun Woodward: The spectrum charge is not the biggest component of the bid, and, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall discuss it later, because it is better dealt with in context.

Philip Davies: There are legitimate concerns among commercial broadcasters about advertising revenue, and an excessive licence fee settlement would distort the market and prevent some commercial broadcasters from spending money on quality productions, such as dramas. It would not be good for the viewing public if the BBC were to produce all such content and end productions by commercial broadcasters.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about the commercial sector and advertising. However, it may be worth reminding him that the problems faced by the commercial sector in television and advertising are not unique. Some regional newspapers, for example, face a crisis generated by advertising spend. Advertising and the commercial media is a huge issue, and the danger is that it is viewed as a problem created by the BBC, which is not the case. The last licence fee was settled seven years ago, when there was unprecedented growth in advertising for commercial television. Since then, the market has changed dramatically, which has created a whole new set of pressures.
	We must examine the impact of the settlement on not only commercial ITV, but regional newspapers. There is a problem, but there is also an opportunity. Most people who run regional newspapers agree that they have been slightly late in recognising the advantages offered by online facilities. Innovation and competition will probably allow regional newspapers to sort out some of their problems, but there is no simple solution for the commercial problems faced by ITV in a market in which overall advertising has decreased in the past few years. It is a mistake to caricature the matter by saying that the problem is the fault of the BBC and that it can be fixed by removing the BBC from certain areas. That is not the right solution, and it would be dangerous to go down that road.

John Whittingdale: The Minister has rightly said that regional newspapers must look to alternative methods of distribution, such as online content, in order to preserve their market position. Does he recognise that that will be made much more difficult if the BBC moves into that market and makes local television available for nothing? The BBC should work with local newspapers rather than competing against them.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair comment. The new charter and the agreement contain measures to mitigate the impact of some of the points about which he is worried.
	I want to make some progress, although I regard interventions as an essential part of having a constructive debate in the House.

Sammy Wilson: I take the Minister's point about putting terms in the contract. Does he accept that if the BBC has an increase in its budget over the next few years of nearly £6 billion, which would be 6.6 per cent. above the retail prices index, it will be bound to compete unfairly with other sources of media, which, as he has said, face declining revenues because of changing advertising budgets?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has a great ability to look into the future—I am sure that he sees a bright future for his party and its leader in late November this year. On speculation about the settlement, I urge a little caution, for reasons that I shall later adumbrate.
	The Government are committed to getting the settlement of the licence fee right and ensuring that it provides value for money for licence fee payers. Conservative Members have asked us to allow Parliament to approve the settlement of the licence fee, but they never wanted to introduce such a provision when they were in government.
	They also say that the process is not transparent enough. I would say in all honesty to the hon. Member for East Devon, who reminded the House that I have a little experience of his party, that I was not aware of a great rush for more transparency on any subject during the two years when I sat on his side of the House. Looking back on the way in which Conservative Members conducted themselves in relation to the BBC and the licence fee review, let alone the charter, I do not recall that transparency was up front. That compares significantly with the process in which we have been engaging.
	The hon. Member for East Devon completely ignored the levels of public consultation that we have engaged in relentlessly for three years. He completely ignored the work of the independent advisers commissioned to scrutinise the bid of the BBC and the fact that we have published, and will continue to publish, the advice that we receive. He ignored the research we have conducted into the public's willingness to pay, which we have said we will publish, as we will. That research is helping to inform us in the Department in getting the right figure rather than the hasty figure that he would like. He ignored the work that has been done by Lord Burns in the course of advising us on the settlement, and he ignored the advice that we have invited and received from the industry.
	If it is transparency and robust scrutiny that inform the demand for debate, I urge hon. Members to reflect on the sheer scale and volume of consultation and the transparency in which it has been conducted. It is of course open to Parliament to express its views on such matters in such debates, as it is to Select Committees. In fact, Select Committees have been looking at this issue for some time, not only in this House but in another place. It is right that they offer clear advice and conclusions about the level of the licence fee and the process that produces that settlement. Parliament has the right to object to changes to the level of the licence fee. Under the negative resolution procedure, it remains open to the House to debate the statutory instrument that sets that level.
	Before we lose sight of the real argument, let us remember that in the course of the consultation we went directly to those people whom we represent here in this House, as we have relentlessly for three years. One of the documents produced more than two years ago on the review of the charter said that when the public were asked who they wanted to have a greater say in running the BBC, Parliament did not do very well. I suggest that hon. Members who want more and more say should go back to what the public said to us about whether they wanted us to have more involvement or less. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, "Let's have less interference," and then demand more.

Tobias Ellwood: The crucial matter at the heart of this is that the licence fee is now called a licence tax. That means that we have a right to debate it here in Parliament, regardless of what other views there are. Does the Minister agree that from now on we should have a debate in the Chamber, not in some Committee on a statutory instrument?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there is a debate happening now, and we will offer the House a debate on the BBC later this month. It is always interesting to see changes made inside the Conservative party, and it is stunning to see them being made at the speed that they are the moment. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are offering a prospectus for how they will deal with this in future, we would be delighted to see it, but he would have to cap a process of consultation, openness and transparency that has never happened before in the history of settling the charter or the licence fee.

Tobias Ellwood: Licence tax.

Shaun Woodward: Of course it is a tax; that is why the Government should be at the heart of setting it and should not abdicate the responsibility to the National Audit Office. The NAO should be involved in advising us, but at the end of the day it is rightly a decision for Government.
	Let me offer further reassurance to Conservative Members who say that they are concerned that the BBC might have a larger than necessary licence fee settlement. It is very simple: it will not. That is why we are not proceeding with the hasty and pressured response that the hon. Member for East Devon would like. The settlement will give the BBC the funds that it needs to deliver its work for the public—in the words of an author slung out of the Conservative party, "not a penny more, not a penny less". The licence fee is not flawless. We recognise that for those on lower incomes a greater proportion of their disposable income will be spent on their licence fee—that is common sense. However, as a percentage of household income, it has declined since 1982. In survey after survey, the licence fee still emerges as the best way to continue funding the BBC. We may call it the least worst option, because nobody much enjoys paying tax, but nobody has come up with a better way of doing it that commands the same incredibly high level of public support.

Edward Vaizey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the licence fee settlement takes us only as far as 2017. The press has reported his thoughts about the future funding of the BBC after 2017, which seem to indicate that the Government are thinking along the lines of a sort of digital tax on personal computers and the like. Will he expand on those remarks?

Shaun Woodward: It would be tempting to talk about our plans for Government in 2017, but I think that that might be a little premature. However, I would be happy to do so on another occasion if the hon. Gentleman invites me.
	We have a very clear view on the way ahead to benefit the licence fee payer. The vision that we have expressed in the White Paper is for a strong BBC independent of Government—a BBC that delivers the quality of programme making that the public expects, has expected and continues to expect, with the highest quality broadcasting, efficiently produced, and with the creation of a trust to serve as guardian of quality and efficiency that is able to prioritise on that basis.

Michael Wills: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about the licence fee, but does he agree that the BBC's enforcement of it could sometimes be done a little more tactfully and sensitively?

Shaun Woodward: Yes. Brevity is sometimes one of the noblest things in this House.

Tony Wright: There is hardly a television programme on the BBC these days that does not involve people voting for somebody or something. Is there any reason why licence fee payers should not be able to vote for somebody or some people and thereby gain direct representation on the new governing arrangements for the BBC?

Shaun Woodward: That is a tempting idea, and I hope that the trust might want to consider it. Applicants are submitting themselves to the selection process, which has a deadline of 26 June. We want to involve the public more. As to whether we end up with an "X Factor" for trust members, we will have to ask Simon Cowell if he can come up with a suitable way of doing it. In the long term, there is no teleological reason why the logic of what we are doing should not be extended to that, but I would have to disappoint my hon. Friend in the short term as regards changing the current arrangements. However, I am open to offers from my hon. Friend, especially if he wants to submit himself.
	One of the most important changes in the new charter is the creation of the trust and the executive board. Let me briefly explain what that means. For the first time, there will be an effective separation of the responsibility for challenging, scrutinising and strategic oversight of the BBC. The trust will undertake that responsibility. In a separate structure, the executive board will look after day-to-day management. That separation of powers is critical. That is critically different from what happens with the existing board of governors because we want to ensure that the conflicting roles that governors have been obliged to play in the past are appropriately separated.
	The governors were responsible for both the delivery and the oversight of BBC services. Under the new charter, a new executive board will be formally constituted for the first time. It will assume responsibility for delivering the BBC's services, allowing the trust to maintain the objective distance from the day-to-day running of the BBC that is needed for it to be effective in its oversight role.

Don Foster: Surely the Minister is wrong. Is not it the case that the chairman of the BBC Trust will be called the chairman of the BBC? Does not that show that a conflict will remain?

Shaun Woodward: Only in the hon. Gentleman's mind, I am afraid. We are clear about the separation. The hon. Gentleman, by interestingly tying himself up in matters of nomenclature, ignores the fundamental strategic difference, which we have been at pains to set out in various papers and the published charter review.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members that the new chairman of the BBC has moved his offices from Broadcasting house and from the television centre to a separate location in Marylebone road to establish the fact that the governance of the BBC will be separate from its running?

Shaun Woodward: My right hon. Friend's brilliance is that I no longer need to remind hon. Members because he has so eloquently done so for me. He is right and gives a good example of the separation of powers.

Hugo Swire: The Minister is right that the powers of the public value test will reside with the trust rather than the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as currently happens, and that Ofcom will provide the market value impact assessment. However, would not providing for Ofcom, rather than the trust, to make the final decisions about market value impact assessment on a new service be one solution to the uncertainty that the varying roles create?

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the clarity and division between the roles of the trust and the executive board. However, I disagree with his interpretation and his conclusions about who ultimately determines the services that the BBC offers. I shall revert to that shortly.
	We were concerned about the dual role that the board of governors played as regulator and cheerleader. The old system was not up to the job of providing clarity, which all hon. Members want, of direction and purpose for the BBC, especially in an increasingly complex global communications market.
	The charter and agreement will define the responsibilities of the new bodies clearly. That is critical in ensuring that the trust can hold the executive board to rigorous account in the interests of the public, who are the licence fee payers. The trust will have wide-ranging duties to consult the public and publish the reasoning behind decisions.
	We and the public believe that the trust represents the most efficient way of protecting both the independence of the BBC and the interests of the licence fee payer. To do that, it needs the expertise to discharge its responsibilities in a professional and businesslike way. To have the best trust, we must ensure that its members are paid an appropriate salary to do their job. I recognise that criticisms have been made from some quarters in the House as well as in the wider press of the remuneration of the trust members.
	I stress that the decision on the rate of remuneration reflects the increased responsibilities and the commitment of time needed from trust members. That is entirely in line with the proposals in the White Paper on the charter review, which proposed that rates should be comparable with those for Ofcom board members. We believe that that will attract the widest range of candidates with stronger backgrounds and ensure that new trust members are the best people for the job.
	Since we put out the advertisement, we have received many applications and we expect more before 26 June. We want to encourage a diverse range of appropriate applicants. I stress to hon. Members who are present and those who may read the debate in  Hansard that we should encourage those who are interested in broadcasting to apply. When hon. Members say that a flood of constituents come to their surgeries every Friday afternoon or Saturday morning to discuss the BBC, a short-term but good solution might be to ask some of them whether they have considered applying. It would be appropriate for more members of the general public, whatever their background, to put themselves forward to represent the public as trust members.

Edward Vaizey: I understand that the selection panel for trust members will include someone from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the current chairman of the BBC. How can we be assured that trust members will be truly independent?

Shaun Woodward: The point is that we are not trying to draw up an A list of candidates—we are trying to invite the public to apply. We should have an appropriate process for bringing the candidates together and interviewing them. We are complying with all the Nolan recommendations and using all the appropriate procedures. It is right to have some expertise on the panel—people who know about the Department with which the candidates will deal. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is helpful when one goes for an interview if someone on the other side of the panel has a vague idea about the job. If he genuinely advocates having nobody there who has a clue about the BBC, the applications procedure will end in chaos.

Edward Vaizey: The Minister has given the game away. Someone who applies for a job is interviewed by the employer. The hon. Gentleman clearly suggests that the Government and the chairman of the BBC will be the trust members' employers. The trust will, therefore, not be independent.

Shaun Woodward: I have long admired the hon. Gentleman's logic, but I think that I have lost it this afternoon. I hope that I will encounter it again on a future edition of "Sky at Night".
	We are also inviting the public to describe how they would like trust members to represent them on the trust. In the next few weeks and months, we will continue to invite further consultation with the public on the sort of responsibilities that they would like to be added to the work of trust members. It is an ongoing process of consultation and I believe that it is the best that we have managed to do in any review or appointment of people to the BBC so far. I am sure that, in the future, we can improve on that. We have made significant progress in producing a fairer and better way of running the BBC.
	We are aware of questions, especially by some in the local newspaper industry, about the new trust's effectiveness as a regulator and its ability to hold the executive to account. That seems neither correct nor fair. I remind hon. Members of what we are proposing. The trust will be underpinned by an unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency; a duty to have regard to competition issues; a system of purpose remits, which sets out strategic priorities in each of the public purposes and for how performance will be judged; a system of service licences and the public value test—with market impact assessments by Ofcom.
	In addition, there will be new duties on value for money and a strengthened role for the National Audit Office in the existing arrangements. It should be provided with the information about the BBC's activities that it reasonably needs to make judgments about matters for examination. The trust must and will ensure that that happens. The governors and the NAO have also agreed that it would be helpful for the NAO's reports to be published as soon as practicable after completion. We welcome the response by the current BBC chairman, Michael Grade, to whom I pay tribute for his work in the past few months, especially as he takes the BBC through a period of change, in not only recognising why we are taking action but acknowledging the spirit in which we are doing that.
	He has already made a commitment to invite the NAO to examine the extent to which future self-help targets are met. This potentially powerful new development should not be underestimated.
	The DCMS has, however, decided not to give the NAO unfettered access to the BBC's accounts. If it did so, it would risk encroaching on the editorial independence of the BBC and would conflict with the principle of direct accountability to the licence fee payer. I remind hon. Members of what the public have told us again and again. They do not want greater involvement by outside bodies in the BBC.

Philip Dunne: The Minister just stated that he believed that the National Audit Office would interfere with the editorial integrity of the BBC. That was the most extraordinary statement. Will he give some examples? What does he fantasise that the National Audit Office might say to the BBC that would affect its independence?

Shaun Woodward: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not fantasise about the NAO in any shape or form, and I am not going to indulge him by doing so now. However, if he wants to write to me about this, I will be very happy to write back.
	The White Paper puts the BBC firmly in the role of a trusted guide, bringing the benefits of new technologies to audiences. To do this, it must have the flexibility to deliver its content in new ways. We want to see increased competition in this marketplace. However, we do not want to dilute the BBC's ability to continue to set standards; nor do we want to create a neo-protectionist market in which existing and new competition are unable to thrive. The broadcasting landscape is more complex today than ever before, and one of the most important aims of the new charter is to provide clarity.
	That is why we have defined the BBC's public purposes more clearly than ever before. That is also why, in setting out its priorities, the trust will have to work with the grain of what others have to offer. The new purpose remits will provide a vehicle for ensuring that the trust engages with the world outside the BBC in deciding how the public purposes should be delivered. It is also why, to embed transparency and certainty in its decision making, we have put in place a new triple-lock system, comprising service licences, content characteristics and the public value test. It is important that the BBC's place in the market is not subject to caricature. Let me assure hon. Members that there will be a new public value test to scrutinise new services, as well as significant changes to existing BBC services, with a market impact assessment provided by Ofcom.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has been extremely generous. I must take him back to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) put to him, as it is fundamental to the way in which we scrutinise the work of the BBC. Will the Minister please give us an illustration of how the editorial content of the BBC could be challenged by the corporation having its accounts audited by the National Audit Office?

Shaun Woodward: We believe that we have set the appropriate arrangements in place. I shall not fantasise about exercises that I cannot imagine for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman. That would be absurd. We believe that we have set up the appropriate governance arrangements for the BBC, based on consultation with the public and the industry, and on the advice of Ofcom and of others who have given us expert advice over nearly three years. We believe that we have found the right way forward, and in about a week's time the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to examine for himself the evidence that we have put forward.
	We have also put in place a new competition framework. Ofcom will have a powerful role in the new system, in which the trust will set specific rules in areas likely to give rise to competition concerns. Taken together, this is a powerful set of reforms for the BBC. For the public, that will lead to improvements in production and in the quality of the programmes that they see. They want a better BBC, and we intend to help them to have it. One of the mechanisms that we want to use to achieve that is the window of creative competition, which will help to stimulate further competition to produce quality and quantity in the programmes produced and put out by the BBC.
	On regional production, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked about the proposed move to Salford. I think that we should all welcome such a move. It involves the prospect of several thousand new jobs opening up in the north-west, and several departments of the BBC—not only sport but, appropriately, new media—going to Salford. That will present a very exciting opportunity.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend will know that we have recently seen a 30 per cent. increase in the number of films being made in Manchester. The number of films being made in Merseyside has reached a new peak, and a new Hollywood feature is being filmed in Cumbria. This has all happened since the BBC move was announced. Will my hon. Friend comment on the further potential for investment and production that will result from the move, which will involve a new base not only for the BBC but for independent companies and other production facilities?

Shaun Woodward: We need to understand that last week's announcement was that Salford is the preferred bidder. This has not been finalised yet, and it is important to consider the matter in that context. The BBC has clearly declared its interest in that area, and it is now conducting firm negotiations for the future there. My hon. Friend asked me about the potential of such a move. I spent 10 years working in the broadcasting industry in the 1980s, when it would have been almost impossible to conceive of the new media and new opportunities that exist now. This is a bit like trying to see round corners. The media city will provide the kind of opportunities that we see when we visit places such as Seoul or Dubai, where media opportunities have been created as a result of extraordinary growth.
	I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Devon has taken the time to examine what has happened in Seoul or Dubai. He does not need to spend any money actually visiting them; he can do the research here. If he does, he will see that such development leads to huge growth, massive numbers of new jobs and—in the case of Salford—the opportunity to bring in not only the BBC, independent production houses and commercial competition but the games industry, the software industry, the music industry and the film industry.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) mentioned some of the activities that are already happening in the north-west. We have to see this development in the context of the fantastic renaissance and regeneration that is happening in the north-west generally. Liverpool will be the European capital of culture in 2008, for example. There is an awful lot happening, and it is absolutely right that the BBC has made this strategic decision, and that it has chosen the Salford bid. Everything that I have heard about the bid tells me that it was very well put together. It was based on a lot of research and, critically, on an understanding not only of the television industry but of the needs of all the creative industries in the north-west.

Graham Stringer: I am very grateful to the Minister for his support for the devolution of many of the BBC's functions and personnel. He knows as well as I do, however, that there are factions in the BBC, fuelled by cosmopolitan arrogance, that are fighting hard against the relocation to Salford Quays. Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the BBC does not use the blackmail of a lower licence fee, or any other argument, to prevent the move to the north-west?

Shaun Woodward: Having had a number of conversations across the industry, I have not received the impression that the senior managers in the BBC who are making this decision have any intention of wriggling out of it. They genuinely see the advantages of moving to the Greater Manchester area, and of diversification and greater regional production. They also see the advantages of bringing in talent that has been constrained by the perception of the BBC as being so London-centric. My hon. Friend has made an extremely good case for his constituents and for others in the Greater Manchester area in helping to secure this bid.
	The people involved in the bid have been smart enough to recognise that, by not going down the protectionist route of saying, "Let's stay in London," and by recognising the advantages of opening themselves up to more competition and diversification, they will bring in greater talent and creativity to the BBC. At the end of the era, if it does not have that, it will not have the services to offer. They have also recognised that places such as Dubai, Seoul and other locations in the far east—which offer different services but use a similar model—create opportunities through diversification, which does a huge amount of good to the local, regional and national economy.
	One of the big tasks ahead in the UK is to recognise the role of creative industries, as I know my hon. Friend does. The future for Britain lies very much with those industries, which represent nearly 8 per cent. of gross value added for the UK economy. It is a huge mistake to think that we can handle it all out of London. It is absolutely right to see it as regionalised and absolutely right to go to places such as the north-west, when we know that incredible talent can be harnessed to one of the main growth industries for the whole of the UK.

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister agree that more than just personnel and resources are involved in devolution, as the mindset is also important, along with recognition of the different features and factors of the modern UK? Scotland has its own Government and its own national life, but we still have a news service that is metropolitan based and becoming increasingly irrelevant. Surely as part of devolution, we should start looking into having a Scottish news service that serves the Scottish people. We should be moving towards regional and national news services.

Shaun Woodward: I acknowledge that. Of course we believe in devolution, but the programmes are a matter for the broadcasters. We already have services such as BBC Scotland. Some hon. Members were rather denigrating the BBC's creation of local news services earlier. I invite them to go and see what the BBC does and the services it offers. In an interactive age, it will get easier for people to make local programmes—exactly what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is asking for. The BBC is moving in the direction of empowering local communities to produce local news services and local programmes. That is why I welcome the innovation that the BBC has embarked upon.
	My final point about digital switchover is that we believe that the BBC is uniquely placed to deliver the benefits of digital to every viewer. That is why we put it at the heart of our plans for digital switchover. It is absolutely right that we have designed a scheme of targeted assistance to help elderly and disabled people, who are most vulnerable.
	Members understandably ask whether we should do more to help the poorest people in our communities, so one important thing needs to be said about targeted assistance and digital switchover. We have learned from the 70 per cent. of the UK that has gone digital so far that the real barrier is not income. By and large, the barrier to has been age and disability. If targeted assistance is to mean anything and we are to get best value from the money given to the BBC to enable the rest of Britain to complete switchover by 2012, we will have to take some tough decisions.
	On the Government Benches—and, increasingly, from what we hear, on the Opposition Benches—we all want to do something to help poorer people, but the fact of the matter is that, when it comes to digital switchover, the biggest impediment to making the switch is not one's income. I do not deny that it might be in some cases, but the real barrier is the people who are 75 or 80—or even my age of 47—and feel challenged by a remote control. We have to deal with that problem. The Bolton trial helped us to realise that more needs to be done, and the several hundred million pounds of targeted assistance will be used to help the elderly, particularly those on pension credit, the disabled and people who are registered blind or partially sighted.

Ann Keen: The Minister has provided us with important information, because vulnerable older people often have contact only with a small number of people. Some of the most significant groups are charities and voluntary organisations, so will the Minister ensure that they are properly involved in the process?

Shaun Woodward: A categorical yes.

Hugo Swire: We are now about two years from the commencement of digital switchover, so it is critical to know what the licence fee will be before it begins, but there appears to be some dislocation. When we debated the announcement of the licence fee, the Minister stated categorically that at no stage would a date be published. However, I have with me a document, "BBC Charter Review: Your BBC, Your Say", which was printed five minutes ago from a DCMS website. It states that phase 3 includes
	"Mid 2006 Parliamentary debate on Charter and Agreement",
	which we are having now, I concede, but it also refers to
	"Mid 2006 Licence Fee level agreed".
	It is now mid-2006 and the Minister says that the licence fee level has not been agreed. One source must be wrong. Is the Minister wrong, or is it the website? If it is the website, I suggest that the Minister urge his civil servants to amend it. If he is wrong, perhaps he will retract his statement.

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. What it reveals is that we said that we were going to have a debate, which we are having. Secondly, it shows that we said that we would make an announcement about the licence fee. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that a document mentions mid-2006, but it does not provide a specific date— [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Gentleman said. Let me tell him that he will get a date when it is right for us to make the announcement. What we will not do, however endearing, charismatic and persistent he is in his demands, is make the announcement before the right time, which will be when we have achieved the right number.
	After nearly three years, this process is drawing to a close and the announcement on the fee will be made shortly. It might be made in a few months, but I am afraid that the hon. Member for East Devon will have to wait. We have conducted the debate with extensive public consultation and the issues have been discussed in Parliament through Select Committees and in Green and White Papers. An extensive process of consultation has taken place on the charter and the licence fee settlement. The end product will be a BBC that is right and forward-looking, helping to create the appropriate marketplace for the UK in the digital age.

Don Foster: Whatever our disagreements, at least we all agree that for the last 80 years, the BBC has been the pre-eminent public service broadcaster, making a major contribution to our democracy, to our culture and to our standing in the world. I suspect that we all agree that in the rapidly changing world of broadcasting, we must ensure a future for the BBC that enables it to remain the best in the world and the envy of the world. That means, in my view, that it must be strong, independent—not least from the Government—and well and securely funded. It must be equipped to meet the challenges of the digital multi-channel, multi-platform age.
	We believe that much in the White Paper, to which the Minister has already referred, and in the draft charter and agreement will help to achieve those aims. Liberal Democrats certainly welcome the decision to have a 10-year charter, which will provide stability for the BBC through the period of digital switchover. We welcome the increased opportunities for independent television production through the window of creative opportunity, but I hope that the BBC will work harder to provide more opportunities for independent radio producers than they have at present. We welcome the concept of service licences for each BBC service, but like the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I certainly believe that we need greater differentiation in the services covered by such licences.
	Although I have some concerns, which I shall explain in a few moments, we welcome the improvements in the system to assess market impact and public value in respect of new BBC services or the development of existing services. We accept that the licence fee is, as the Minister described it, the least worst option currently available. It is certainly far better than alternatives such as direct Government funding, subscription, advertisements or sponsorship. We also welcome and support the planned move to Salford Quays in Greater Manchester.
	As critical friends of the BBC, we have a number of remaining concerns about some of the Government's proposals—most notably governance, which the Minister dwelt on. He was absolutely right to say that the old system under which the governors were both flag wavers for and regulators of the BBC was simply untenable and had to change.
	We propose that a totally independent regulator should be established for all public service broadcasters. We certainly do not believe that what the Government propose will give us what is urgently needed—a genuinely independent regulator. For example, some of the existing governors will transfer to the new trust. That is certainly evidence of continuity, rather than radical overhaul. Perhaps more importantly, the White Paper very clearly describes the BBC Trust as a
	"sovereign body within the BBC",
	not separate from the BBC. Whatever the Minister might say about my point about the chairman of the trust being called the chairman of the BBC being pedantic, that too adds to the confusion.
	The Minister said that it was right and proper for Select Committees to give clear advice to the Government. Certainly, he will be aware that the House of Lords Select Committee on the BBC Charter Review gave very clear advice on the issue. It said that the
	"proposals for reforming the governance...of the BBC are confusing, misguided and unworkable."
	As I said in an intervention earlier—yes, it is surely right that the Government have carried out an extensive consultation exercise, but what matters is that they then listen to what people have said during the consultation.
	We are convinced that the trust is an improvement on the current governor arrangements, but it still does not provide an independent regulator, so the BBC will be its own judge and jury. That will certainly give no confidence to people who fear that, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the BBC will use its powers to crowd out others from the marketplace if it does not have an independent regulator to make those decisions.
	Indeed, we have already heard from a number of hon. Members that similar concerns have been expressed by a wide range of bodies in the broadcasting and media sector. I have certainly heard such views from local and regional newspapers— including  The Bath Chronicle in my constituency , which is excellent—from the commercial radio sector and from other TV and internet companies. Yes, we have a better system now, but if the BBC is ultimately to be its own judge and jury, the system will not give the BBC's competitors confidence about whether they will be protected from being crowded out.
	Just before I turn to the licence fee, I want briefly to mention three other issues relating to the BBC's future. First, although I acknowledge the advice that Lord Justice Auld gave in 2001, I fail to understand why licence fee evasion should continue to be a criminal offence. I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider that issue, and find out whether such evasion could become a civil offence—and, incidentally, whether we could introduce a fixed penalty system, like those used for failing to pay parking fines, the congestion charge or whatever.
	Secondly, hon. Members have already expressed the view that we want to see a strong BBC, but not an omnipotent BBC. The BBC benefits from competition in public service broadcasting. A monopoly would benefit no one, including the BBC. We need to do more than is currently proposed to protect the other players who deliver public service broadcasting, including some, such as Sky and those in the commercial radio sector, who are not defined as public service broadcasters but make an important contribution to public service broadcasting. I certainly welcome the BBC's proposals to work in partnership with, for instance, Channel 4, but we also need not only stronger measures to protect the market but a much more urgent review than is currently planned of what the hon. Member for East Devon called PSB in the round.
	Thirdly, all hon. Members would accept that the World Service is the jewel in the crown. Many of us are delighted at the World Service's proposals to introduce a new television service in the middle east, but I simply fail to understand why, for the sake of just £6 million, we cannot ensure that it becomes a 24-hour service, rather than the 12-hour service that is proposed.
	Now I come to the crucial issue of the licence fee. Like others, I am concerned by the undoubted delay in the Government's announcement of the licence fee. It worries me enormously that we will end up with two separate announcements—one about the charter and agreement, and the other about the licence fee. Surely those announcements need to be brought together. In other words, we need a menu with prices.

Daniel Kawczynski: I, too, applaud the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the BBC World Service, but does he agree that it is regrettable that the BBC is cutting some radio services to eastern Europe?

Don Foster: In fairness, I must say that the BBC has looked very carefully at that issue, and has been in discussion with the Foreign Office about the services that it will cut. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the listening figures for the vast majority of those services do not justify their continuation in comparison with the benefits that will accrue from the new television service in the middle east. Of course, in an ideal world one would want the continuation and development of all those services, but people must work within a tight budget. Sadly, the BBC cannot even get an extra £6 million for the middle east television service.
	On the overall figure, the BBC proposes to use the formula of the retail prices index plus 2.3 per cent. Since it made that announcement in November, a number of its figures have changed. For example, the cost of the welcome move to Manchester has gone down, whereas its expected pension costs have gone up. I understand from the BBC that the net effect of all the changes will not substantially alter the proposal to use the RPI plus 2.3 per cent. formula. I hope that, as the Minister has indicated, the most up-to-date costings supplied by the BBC will be published in the near future.
	I suggest that, for two reasons, the BBC's proposed figure is too high. First, we must be mindful of the effect of a cash-rich BBC, combined with inadequate independent regulation, on the rest of the broadcasting and media ecology. That point has been well made already. Secondly, the BBC's figures include costs that simply should not fall on the licence fee payer. Providing free television licences for the over-75s was a Government policy, and the Department for Work and Pensions rightly hands over millions of pounds every year to the BBC to make up its lost revenue. Similarly, digital switchover is a Government policy, so it should be paid for by the Government, possibly from the revenues that they will gain from the disposal of the analogue spectrum. It certainly should not be a cost for the licence fee payer.
	Similarly, the Minister talks about the hundreds of millions of pounds that will be spent on the very important targeted assistance to help the elderly and vulnerable to benefit from the digital revolution. That is a sensible policy, but it is a Government social policy, and therefore it should be paid for by the Government, not by the licence fee payer. Those are not broadcasting costs, as the Government keep describing them, but Government policy costs. Charging the licence fee payer for them is simply a smash-and-grab raid—yet another stealth tax, as others might call it.
	If the Government were to go still further, as some have already suggested, by imposing a spectrum charge on the BBC, which, in turn, the licence fee payer would have to bear, it would be yet another smash-and-grab raid. I therefore hope that the Government will look carefully at the independent report produced in April this year by .econ that concluded:
	"Overall we find that the case for imposing spectrum charges on such broadcasters"—
	the BBC and Channel 4—
	"is weak, and that it risks disrupting their ability to fulfil their public service obligation with no countervailing benefit."
	I hope that the Government will listen to that view. The case for imposing spectrum charges on public service broadcasters simply has not been made. The RPI plus 2.3 per cent. formula contains items that should not be paid for by the licence fee payer.
	As other hon. Members—notably, the hon. Member for East Devon—have already pointed out, it has been argued in various other reports, such as ITV's Indepen report or the PKF report, that the BBC's licence fee is too high for other reasons, and I shall deal with those reasons briefly.

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a number of very good arguments. He said that the BBC's bid of RPI plus 2.3 contained elements that were unjustified. The assistance package is not included in that figure; once it is included, the bid becomes even larger.

Don Foster: That is absolutely true. A number of other issues have not yet been taken into account, which is why it is so important for us to debate them. However, because I do not believe that any Member of Parliament—and that includes me—is capable of doing full justice to all the competing claims that have featured in the Indepen report and the PKF report and have emanated from the BBC and others, it is also crucial for us to ask the National Audit Office not only to take a greater role in scrutinising the BBC's accounts, but to take a much greater and an immediate role in scrutinising the various reports and proposals. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, some reports have suggested that the BBC has not taken adequate account of the number of new homes that will be built and the number of households that will consequently pay the licence fee. The hon. Gentleman will also know that a number of people have said that the BBC's proposals do not give enough weight to the savings that could be made through greater efficiency.
	I am aware that the BBC has contradicted those claims, but as I have said, I am not in a position to judge the competing claims being made. That is why the NAO must have that crucial scrutiny role, and must report to Parliament following its scrutiny. Not only is that in the Conservatives' motion, but the Liberal Democrats proposed it back in 2003.
	The hon. Member for East Devon was absolutely right to say, as does the motion, that Parliament should have the final say on the level of the licence fee. That is not a subject for a debate in a Committee Room on a negative resolution. There must be a substantive amendable motion, which must be approved on the Floor of the House. I accept what the Minister said about research evidence: the public will be willing to wear an additional licence fee—but only if they are confident that they will not be paying for things for which they should not be paying, and that they will benefit from improved quality and value for money.
	This is a crucial debate, and one that the Government should have initiated by now. The BBC is the envy of the world, and we want it to remain so as we begin to meet the challenges that the digital age brings. As I have acknowledged, the Government's plan will help—but I hope that they will not just listen to, but act on the concerns expressed by many who have responded to the consultations and to those expressed here today, so that the BBC can continue to be strong, independent, and well but not excessively funded.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a ten-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Gerald Kaufman: I think the House will agree that under its new chairman, Michael Grade, and its new director-general, Mark Thompson, the BBC has made a fresh and encouraging start, and that the work they have done since their appointments is commendable.
	One thing that the BBC has done is make a major contribution to digital switchover through the innovation of Freeview, following the failure of the ITV digital project. I pay tribute to Greg Dyke for his initiative in bringing that about. Another of his initiatives, also deserving of tribute, is the decision to move to the north-west. I am convinced that the BBC fully intends the move to go ahead. It would be idle of me to deny that there is disappointment in the city of Manchester over the provisional decision to move to Salford—I understand that that is likely to happen, although not overwhelmingly likely, as the BBC has still to make the final decisions—but whether the move is to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) or to Salford Quays, which is a superb area of innovation, what is important is the recognition that a new centre of media initiative and a new cluster of enterprise is being created. I pay tribute to the BBC for making it clear, very firmly, that it wants the move to the north-west to go ahead.
	It is obvious that all broadcasters face huge challenges. As a tax-funded public corporation, the BBC has a special responsibility for meeting those challenges. When the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I chaired before the election, looked into BBC charter renewal, we wanted—anticipating the possibility of a new 10-year charter—to think about the nature of the technological and content-related environment not just in 2006, but in 2016. Since the Committee reported and since the Government decided that the BBC should have that new 10-year charter, technological change has moved exponentially ahead within not much more than a year. Given the prospect of 10 more years following the end of this year, it is essential for the BBC, when making its plans, to take account of what Bernard Shaw had in mind in his play "Back to Methuselah" when he entitled the last act "As Far as Thought can Reach".
	Already, over the past few months, we have seen vast changes. A year ago, the iPod was an enviable cult object; today it is pretty universal. The downloading to mobile phones of news, information, entertainment and music is proceeding rapidly—and, as I have said, this is only the beginning.
	There is great concern—and rightly so—about the declining attention paid to the BBC and other conventional broadcasters by the young people who will be key participants in technological communication in the future. Anyone who moves around any of our cities, such as London or my own city of Manchester, will see young people wearing earphones and constantly looking at their mobile phones, not simply to make calls and send text messages but for all sorts of reasons. If the BBC is to be ahead of the game, as we all want it to be, and if it is to attract the kind of participation that will justify its being financed by a tax, it is essential for it to understand one thing. Although the concerns of many Members of Parliament are focused on the most conventional forms of BBC transmission, such as Radio 4, Radio 3 and even Radio 1 and Radio 2—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—those are now very small minority channels in comparison with what a large number of people are using the BBC and broadcasting for. The BBC must not simply keep pace with technological change; it must keep ahead of it.
	It is good that—as those of us who have been watching the World cup matches will have observed—the BBC has progressed to high-definition. So far it has one high-definition channel, and I hope that it will have many more. However, the BBC needs to take another careful look at its non-direct broadcasting activities. The interactive services that it provides on BBC News 24, for example, are miles behind what Sky provides. The BBC mechanism is very clumsy, whereas Sky's is very clear.
	At one time, the BBC's principal website was regarded as the pioneer for all such sites, receiving large numbers of hits. I fear that that is no longer so, and newspaper websites such as those of  The Guardian and  The Daily Telegraph are far ahead of what one gets from BBC Online. That is another matter that the BBC needs to consider.
	It is perfectly clear that we need a public service broadcasting corporation that is not funded by advertising. I am very glad that we have the public service Channel 4, which does a superb job, as does the More4 channel. Channel 5 is now doing very well with its innovative and cultural broadcasting, but the BBC is unique, because it is funded by a tax. The House of Commons has decided that there should be a new BBC charter, and it is extremely important that the BBC reciprocates by ensuring that it leads technological change.
	That must not happen just for its own sake, as the BBC must take account of social change in this country. More and more people—mainly but not exclusively young people—are creating their own visual and audio entertainment and information channels.
	The day has gone when people would sit in front of a box, or drive along in their cars, and be fed by what was provided. People now create what they want. In many ways, the proliferation of the addiction to mobile phones is maddening, but it shows that people have a new way of communicating, and that they want their own voices to be heard as much as they want to listen and be told things.
	On occasion, I have been considered to be something of a sceptic about the BBC, but we owe it a lot. However, as I have explained, I believe that it, in recompense and reciprocation, owes us a lot too.

John Whittingdale: I by thank my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for giving us this opportunity to debate the future of the BBC. Despite the Minister's claims about the number of debates that have been held and the scrutiny that has occurred, this is the House's first opportunity to debate it since the general election. We last debated it in March last year, when we considered the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I now chair, but which at that time was chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). It is a great pleasure to follow him this afternoon.
	Since then, the Government have published a White Paper on charter renewal, and the BBC has unveiled its bid for a licence fee settlement to cover the seven years from next April. The BBC's chairman and director-general chose to reveal the bid for the first time during the course of their evidence to the Select Committee last October. The Select Committee was able to question them about their plans, and I congratulate the BBC on a bold and brave initiative, which I hope will be maintained.
	The BBC bid was for 2.3 per cent. each year, over and above inflation. At the time it looked excessive, but increasing pressures since on commercial broadcasters have made it look even more disproportionate. However, if we are to consider the case for a licence fee increase, we must look at the case made at the time of the previous licence fee settlement. That was for 1.5 per cent. over inflation each year for seven years from 2000, and has led to the licence fee rising by well over a third since 1997. Yet the income from the fee has risen much faster, as the number of homes has increased steadily as well. As a result, the BBC's total licence fee income has grown by more than 50 per cent.
	At the time of the previous settlement, the then Secretary of State said that he was
	"not going to allow the BBC the massive injection of funds that it has sought from the licence fee—an increase reaching more than £700 million a year by 2006."—[ Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1239.]
	In fact, the BBC's income in the period will have risen by very nearly £1 billion, so it is no wonder that the present director-general said—when he was in another capacity at Channel 4—that the BBC had been bathing in a jacuzzi of cash.
	At the same time, the funds available to commercial broadcasters have been squeezed. There has been a proliferation of digital channels, and the switch to digital has meant that the main commercial broadcasters have seen a steady decline in the market share that they command and, as a result, in their advertising revenue as well.
	Moreover, advertising spend has been diverted to online services. Yesterday, the Select Committee heard that TV's share of advertising had declined from 32 per cent. in 2004 to a forecast 27 per cent., while internet advertising has grown by 50 per cent. The introduction of personal video recorders and timeshifting will exert even greater pressure on commercial television. For that reason, the BBC's claims that, even after the licence fee settlement, it will have a smaller share of media revenues is at best disingenuous, since that includes internet advertising.
	In 1998, ITV and Channel 4 revenues exceeded the licence fee income by £300 million. Indeed, the BBC argued at the time of the previous settlement that it needed an increase to keep up with commercial television. Now, the income from the licence fee is significantly greater than the combined advertising income of ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, GMTV, S4C and all their associated channels.
	That is the context in which this licence fee bid must be judged. The BBC is already by far the biggest player: an increase of the size suggested would distort the market still further, and place it in too dominant a position.
	Of course, the BBC claims that the licence fee is good value for money. That is supported by some opinion surveys, but as long as the fee remains a compulsory television tax that people have no choice but to pay, it is difficult to judge its acceptability.
	The Government claim that the licence fee is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the Minister said earlier that that is achieved through the negative procedure. In no other area is a £3 billion tax increased by a procedure that does not allow amendment and which is often not even debated. When it is debated, the proceedings last 90 minutes in a Committee Room upstairs.
	The negative procedure also means that Parliament has no ability to approve or disapprove particular uses of licence fee money. We know that the BBC has asked for an increase of 2.3 per cent., but that does not include the cost of the assistance package. My Committee, like others, took the view that the licence fee is a social rather than a broadcasting cost, and that it should therefore be financed from Exchequer funds. I regret that the Government are unwilling to accept that.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have very little time.
	We still do not know the total cost of the assistance package, but it will represent an extra amount on top of the licence fee. It will not be just a stealth tax, but rather a stealth poll tax, as the licence fee, as the motion correctly points out, hits low-income families hardest.
	The reason for that is a flaw in the licence fee itself. In the previous Parliament, the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton reported that the fee was regressive and unfair. In the long term, I do not think that it is sustainable, and I regret that the Government appear to have batted that question into the long grass for the course of the next licence fee period. I hope that the Government will consider at least some of the anomalies when they come to make their announcement. One in particular has been identified by the Select Committee—that people who pay the licence fee by instalments end up paying more than those who make a one-off payment. That is another way, therefore, in which those on the lowest incomes have to bear the largest burden.
	I want to speak briefly about charter renewal. I welcome the creation of the BBC Trust; it improves the position of the governors, which was widely recognised as unsustainable after the Hutton report. However, Michael Grade had already put in place arrangements to distance the governors from the management of the BBC, so it is not clear how the new arrangement differs from what the BBC has already done. It does not resolve the underlying difficulty that the final arbiter of the behaviour of the BBC is a body that is part of the BBC. Ofcom has responsibility for tier 1 questions, but not for the key areas of the BBC's public service remit—impartiality and fairness. Nowhere is that more important than in the area of the BBC's creative futures plan.
	The world is changing rapidly, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out; people are accessing media via the internet, iPods and mobile phones. It is right that the BBC should make programmes available on whatever platform people choose to use, but the BBC's plans go considerably further. It is not just making its programmes available on different platforms; it proposes to introduce whole new services. To take just one example: the BBC plans to make news content available to mobile providers for nothing, so that the consumer will pay a charge only to the mobile operator and not to the news provider. When asked about the impact of that new service on ITN, the BBC told the Committee that ITN could finance the service through advertising, but advertising is not developed on mobile so that suggestion is wholly unrealistic. The result will be that the BBC service undercuts a commercial service before it has even got off the ground.
	As has been said, there are concerns about the BBC's ambitions in the area of local newspapers, the creative archive and MyBBC Player, and the fact that the BBC's licence fee bid is for £1.2 billion to finance new digital services means that there will be a major impact on the market. Under the new arrangements, the BBC's new services will be subject to a market impact assessment and a public value test, which is certainly a step forward. However, although Ofcom is due to carry out the market impact assessment, the final decision—the public value test—will rest with the BBC. By definition, that will be a subjective judgment. What criteria will the BBC apply to judge the public value of a new service when compared to the market? I share the view of my Front-Bench colleagues that it would have been better to give that decision to Ofcom rather than leaving it with the BBC. If the BBC is to make it, it is essential that each new individual service is subject to a public service licence and a market impact assessment. It is not good enough to have one service licence embracing all of them.
	The BBC is an immensely powerful organisation and is often a force for considerable good, but it needs to be subject to proper checks. The measures in the motion will achieve that.

Ian Stewart: I am a firm supporter of a strong, independent BBC. The BBC is a world-standard broadcaster of international renown and enjoys a high level of domestic satisfaction, which we should remember. We like the Beeb. I want to see the BBC grow, prosper and diversify.
	In 2004, the BBC gave a commitment to relocate some of its activities to the regions. That will complement the Government's strategy for investment in the regions, and the north-west is perfectly placed to nurture that creative investment and capitalise on it, which will be most beneficial to my Eccles constituents.
	In 2004, the BBC committed itself to establishing a state-of-the-art BBC centre in the Manchester area with
	"brilliant career and creative opportunities",
	moving London-based children's TV and radio—including CBBC and CBeebies—BBC Sport, Five Live and Five Live Sports Extra, new media headquarters, research and development and formal learning departments to the Manchester city region; moving an estimated 1,800 staff from London to the Manchester city region; increasing the amount of TV drama filmed outside London from 30 to 50 per cent. during the next charter period; and creating a media zone that could include other broadcasters, publishers and independent companies. All that was to be achieved by 2010.
	It is a wise commitment. In the past decade, cultural and economic development in the north-west has been increasing rapidly, and the area is now the busiest production centre outside London. The success of the BBC's investment will be central to sustaining the growth of the media industry and the regional economy. I shall summarise that growth. Filming in Manchester rose by 30 per cent in 2005-06, with 2005 being the busiest year ever. In the first quarter of this year, production in Merseyside reached £6.7 million, constituting a huge increase on the previous year. Following the opening of North West Vision's film office in Cumbria, a two-week shoot in the county was secured for the Hollywood feature film "Miss Potter", starring Renee Zellweger. The Cheshire-based company Mackinnon and Saunders won its first children's commission for the BBC after receiving development investment from North West Vision. One hundred and fifteen Lancashire-based crew and facilities companies with current TV credits have registered on the North West Vision database used by productions that need to employ crew and use facilities.
	Last week, the BBC announced in principle that it is proposing to establish a northern centre in Salford's MediaCity:UK, based at Salford Quays, subject to resolving some outstanding issues. The project must also pass the two tests of value for money for licence fee payers and affordability, so the BBC has said that a final decision cannot be taken until the licence fee settlement is known. There are lots of t's to be crossed, but everything is still to play for.
	I do not blame the BBC for using its bargaining strength to get the best possible funding deal. As a former negotiator myself, I respect that tactic. However, although I support a reasonable increase in the licence fee, I point out to the BBC that the Salford MediaCity:UK is such an exciting, world-class development that its move there should be confirmed in any case. The move should go ahead whether or not there is an above-inflation increase in the licence fee.
	Although the new MediaCity:UK—about which I would like to say a little more—will be located in Salford, it will bring considerable benefits to the Greater Manchester area and the region as a whole, as I have just demonstrated. The project has the support of the Northwest Development Agency and a range of partners across the region. The vision is powerful: a globally significant, new media city to compete with emerging media cities in Seoul, Singapore and Dubai; and a modern, digital city for the UK, surrounded by four excellent universities, which will be the centre of BBC production on Salford Quays. Salford will have a silicon canal to match the US silicon valley and Scotland's silicon glen. It is estimated that the project will bring 15,500 jobs, and it includes a recording studio for the BBC Philharmonic orchestra, floating stages for concerts and theatre, studio and technical facilities for media industries, a media skills institute and a research academy. I support the proposal that the BBC should become a world player as a search engine, but I am also keen to see the corporation established as a media and communications-oriented digital global university.
	I understand that some BBC staff may be fearful of a move north. Relocations have to be managed positively and sensitively, but I believe that BBC workers will be pleasantly surprised by the varied and vibrant environment of Greater Manchester. I hope that the Government will give the BBC all the support it needs in that regard.
	To sum up, we need an early but considered licence fee decision from the Government. It is important to get that right. Even if the BBC does not achieve the licence fee it wants, it should carry out its commitment to relocate to the Manchester city region and be a partner in the development of the exciting new media city in Salford.
	I hope that the House will forgive me if I leave now, as I hope to contribute to the Westminster Hall debate on funding for local transport—yes, the new media city proposal will involve development of our successful Metrolink tram network to service the city and local people, so I shall go into the Government Lobby to oppose the Conservative motion.

Daniel Kawczynski: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart). I would like to say that he is a friend of mine. I like him very much and my wife is very fond of him as well, as he knows.
	The most important thing that I have picked up in the debate—I was listening carefully to what the Minister said—from the point of view of politicians and the scrutiny by Parliament of the BBC, is the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He called for a greater role for that Committee in scrutinising the BBC licence fee. I was greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), when he assured us that the next Conservative Government would allow greater interaction from the Public Accounts Committee on that issue. I am still somewhat mystified by the Minister's response. I do not really understand what he said in that regard, so I shall write to him.
	The BBC is a tremendous asset for our country. The first time that I realised its importance was on a visit to Warsaw in 1983, immediately after the martial law imposed by General Jaruzelski. Many of my friends in Warsaw were listening intently to the BBC World Service, which brought a true reflection of the world to those oppressed people—it brought them the reality. It also brought great hope to people behind the iron curtain. It could be argued that the BBC World Service helped to bring about the revolutions in eastern Europe that finally drove out the communist oppression that had held them for such a long time. People could not trust their local radio. I feel a great shame, as I said in my earlier intervention, that the service to eastern Europe will be cut. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary was defeated by 24 votes to one in her intention to stop the BBC and other channels broadcasting the events of the Council of Ministers, because broadcasting has an important role to play in the scrutiny of this Parliament and of what goes on in Brussels and the European Parliament.
	The BBC's pedigree is tremendous, and gives it the opportunity to challenge CNN and other American broadcasting corporations when it comes to being the global voice of broadcasting. That is important in today's global world. I know that President Chirac of France is intent on spending hundreds of millions of euros on trying to come up with an equivalent to the BBC World Service and CNN. He realises that France is losing out on a tremendous amount of influence globally because it does not have an equivalent. The French version of events is not being broadcast around the world.
	The BBC World Service is excellent and is very broad in scope. Its programmes involve many discussions about political, social and economic issues all around the world. Recently, I watched a television programme on the BBC World Service that was extremely incisive about the new political developments in Bolivia. I wish that we had more of that type of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. We need to have more programmes like that to teach our children about other countries and cultures. We live in an increasingly multicultural United Kingdom and we need to make sure that our young citizens know about the good things around the world, rather than just listening to the coverage at the moment, which is so negative about world events.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, about the Government in particular—quite right. I should say negative but effective and correct. The programmes that we tune into on the domestic BBC tend to focus on problem areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of great conflict. There is a tremendous amount of good going on around the world, particularly in developing countries. The BBC World Service does a good job of highlighting that and I regret that the domestic BBC does not follow suit.
	There have been suggestions that the licence fee could rise to £180 by 2013. Many vulnerable groups would struggle to pay that sort of fee. I applaud the Government for the action that they have taken to introduce free TV licences for those over 75. I hope that if the licence fee does go up to £180, the next Conservative Government—of course, we will have a Conservative Government by then—will ensure that other vulnerable groups are helped to pay that fee.
	The impartiality of the BBC is critical to the future success of the corporation, and its impartiality has been debated on a number of occasions. I remember in 1986, as a passionate young Conservative, being furious about the BBC coverage of the bombing of Tripoli in Libya. I believed at the time that the coverage was extremely biased. However, I was greatly encouraged by the way in which the BBC exposed the Labour Government over the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the way in which it stood by its guns over the issue. That has led me to believe that although there are times when political parties feel that the BBC is acting against their interests, overall it is impartial.

Edward Vaizey: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that an independent report on the BBC's coverage of the middle east showed that it tends to report the middle east in an extremely biased way and is very anti-Israeli? That report has been completely glossed over by the BBC governors.

Daniel Kawczynski: I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although the BBC is impartial on domestic politics, there is a lot that it can do to counteract that bias against the Israeli authorities.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on what a senior BBC executive said to me only a couple of weeks ago? He believes that the Welsh nationalist party was founded in the bowels of BBC Wales and is mostly sustained by BBC Wales.

Daniel Kawczynski: Well, as a Member of Parliament in England, albeit with a border with Wales, I try not to get involved too much in Welsh politics—I will leave that to my hon. Friends who represent Welsh seats. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point on board.
	The BBC is impartial, but we need to safeguard its impartiality. We need a regulator with teeth to arbitrate and manage that impartiality. I was quite surprised by the way in which Greg Dyke behaved during the course of the controversy with the Government. Although he was a socialist and a supporter of the Government, he stood up to the Government—despite all the pressure that was being put on him. He went up in my estimation for the way in which he handled the situation. However, we cannot leave it to chance that we will always have somebody like Greg Dyke who will stand up for the best interests of impartiality and the BBC, no matter how much force is brought to bear on him or her. I will go as far as to say that I was appalled by the way in which members of the board of trustees left him out to dry. It is important that we have more professional people on that board and that they stand by their director-general and look after the interests of the BBC, rather than pander to the Government.
	I want to give my hon. Friends the chance to speak, so I will conclude on a more light-hearted note. I wish that we could have more culture programmes on the BBC. My wife and I love to watch romantic costume dramas such as "Pride and Prejudice" and Charles Dickens programmes— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others might not be especially interested in culture and theatrics. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that such programmes give young people tremendous benefits from the point of view of culture and a historical background.

John Grogan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who spoke with great verve and style about the international role of the BBC and the importance of the BBC's independence, as well as costume drama. I will concentrate on perhaps the oldest service that the BBC has provided, although it is one in which there has been plenty of innovation in recent years: BBC radio. Before I do so, however, I wish to make a few observations.
	It is possible to overstate the strength and power of the BBC. I respond directly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—we have discussed this matter before. We should consider the total industry revenue. I admit that advertising has declined in the commercial sector, but Sky's subscription revenue and online revenues are extremely buoyant. When Mrs. Thatcher left office, the BBC had more than 40 per cent. of total market revenue, but now it has 23 per cent. Even if the BBC got what it wanted from the licence fee settlement, best estimates suggest that it would have a fifth of industry revenue. It is thus worth putting the power of the BBC in perspective.
	As the Minister pointed out, the licence fee has fallen as a proportion of people's income in recent years, and it will probably continue to do so. Importantly, the licence fee has also fallen as a percentage of the income of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population, although that is not to say that it is not a burden on many households.
	We must consider the overall output of our system of broadcasting, of which the BBC is such an important part. In Britain, $75 a head is spent on home-produced programming each year, which is more than is spent in the United States and Germany. That is a product of a strong BBC and a strong licence fee.
	We have heard about the BBC's plans to innovate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked about the success of Freeview, and we have heard about the success of BBC Online under Greg Dyke's predecessor, John Birt. Those proposals were controversial in their time. The commercial sector asked whether it was right for the BBC to go into those areas, just as it now asks whether it is right for the BBC to create an open and a creative archive so that licence fee payers can access BBC content. People ask whether it is right that the BBC produces local television news. There are many options for partnerships with commercial interests. For example, in the west midlands, where local television news is being pioneered, the BBC has signed a joint letter of intent with Trinity Mirror, the commercial organisation that runs the main evening newspapers in Birmingham and Coventry.
	It is thus possible for the BBC and the commercial sector to be partners, but I would urge hon. Members to be sceptical about some of the commercial sector's claims that the BBC crowds it out. Since the BBC's inception, it has been in competition with the private sector and has thus distorted the market. BBC Parliament is probably the only BBC product that does not distort the market because it does not have a commercial competitor— [ Interruption. ] It is unlikely to have one, too.
	To respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, is it not one of the great glories of the independence of the BBC that all the different views expressed in this debate, some of which will be critical of the BBC, will be reported on "Today in Parliament"? After the Hutton inquiry, output at all levels of the BBC reflected the different views expressed. Sky News would never broadcast a discussion on the Murdoch empire or the fact that no one is watching test match cricket on Sky and that access to one of our crown jewels of sport is thus being reduced. One of the great things about the BBC is that it has such independence and thus no thought can be unspoken.
	Let me move on to radio, as I promised. The commercial sector makes three criticisms of BBC radio: it is too big; it should be more involved with the independent sector on programming; and Radio 1 and Radio 2 should perhaps be privatised. It is true that the BBC has a 56 per cent. share of the radio market. Two or three years ago, the BBC and the commercial sector were saying that given the advent of more stations due to digital radio and the powers in the Communications Act 2003 to allow commercial radio stations to merge, the BBC's share would have gone down considerably by this stage. To an extent, the BBC is embarrassed by its success. The situation reflects not only the decline in the independent sector's advertising revenue, but the sector's lack of ambition. The programming on many commercial stations is in exactly the same format.
	The Commercial Radio Companies Association has a case to make, but sometimes it overstates it. For example, its briefing for today's debate says:
	"Radio 2 has refocused towards younger listeners."
	BBC Radio 2 has changed in recent years, so I wondered whether the allegation that it had suddenly abandoned the middle aged and elderly of Britain and gone for 15 to 24-year-olds was true. The audience of Radio 2 is very homogenous. The average age of listeners to Terry Wogan is 52, as is the average age of listeners to Jeremy Vine. The average age of listeners to Jonathan Ross—we have heard about him—is 52, and the average age of listeners to Steve Wright is 50. That makes me feel like a young man again.
	Radio 2 has innovated and has a broad range of programming. Radio 1 and Radio 2 play much more original music than the commercial sector and have a much richer range of programming. We have heard about the importance of involving youth in the BBC and the media. "Newsbeat", which is broadcast on BBC Radio 1, is the news programme that attracts more 16 to 24-year-olds than any other, as it has done for many generations. In debates in previous Sessions, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen talked about privatising BBC Radio 1 and Radio 2. I am glad that we have not heard such comments today. Such privatisation would be a shame, not least for the commercial sector, because unless the advertising market expanded by 25 per cent., many existing commercial stations would lose out.
	Let me say a word about the contribution of the independent sector to BBC radio. I am pleased that BBC radio is committed to more than doubling the proportion of hours that it will guarantee to independents. It says:
	"The floor will move from around 2,600 hours at present to 7,300 hours by 2007/8".
	Although the outsourcing of television programmes to independents has been successful, it is more difficult to outsource radio programmes. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the independent sector is still developing in the radio market and much of radio is live. It would probably be difficult to outsource a lot of programming on BBC local radio, which is one of the jewels in the crown of BBC radio that reaches all our communities. Indeed, there might be cost advantages in keeping programming in-house, and I am pleased that the BBC is addressing the matter. Some radio sport coverage is being outsourced. For example, the coverage of grand prix has been outsourced this year for the first time.
	I hope that the Government will continue to value both the international BBC World Service, which, as we have heard, has record audience figures, and BBC radio itself. I am pleased that it looks as if we will have much-needed competition from the commercial sector on speech radio for the first time. If Channel 4 successfully gains digital space, it will be good for the BBC and will probably reduce its 56 per cent. share of the market slightly.
	I conclude by saying a word about BBC Sport and the importance of having a well-funded BBC to take on subscription TV in particular. It is a joy in Britain that all the World cup matches are available on BBC or ITV, unlike in Germany, where half are on subscription TV, or in Spain, where more than half are on subscription TV. That is not an accident but the result of an intervention in the broadcasting market, as a result partly of a desire to show the crown jewels of sport, of which the World cup is one, and partly of the fact that we have a sufficiently funded BBC licence fee, so that it can compete in the market and secure such rights. Is not it a joy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to watch some of the games without adverts? Is not it a joy that every pub and restaurant in London can put up a TV and everyone can watch them? Is not that a contrast with cricket, which is only shown on subscription TV and has only 200,000 viewers on Sky? Long may the BBC have a sufficiently funded system so that, according to the old adage, it can make the good popular and the popular good.

Pete Wishart: I shall confine my remarks to the future of the BBC as it applies to Scotland, which is perhaps not unsurprising. It is fortuitous that we are holding the debate because I do not think that the BBC has ever been as irrelevant—it is almost approaching irritating—to the people of Scotland as it is now. It might surprise a few hon. Members to know that the vast majority of viewers in Scotland do not want or require an early update on the progress of Wayne Rooney's foot or Michael Owen's knee. Sometimes we like watching our football games with the real World cup contenders—the Argentinas, the Netherlands and the Portugals—without constant reference to the English football team. Perhaps at half-time we could get an analysis of the game that we are watching, not some extended update about the progress of the England team. All that is fine for English Members—it is great that they are getting that; it is fantastic, right and appropriate— but Scotland does not need the commentary on another nation, but that is exactly what we are getting.
	We can use the red button on our remote to get different BBC commentaries, but they range in their support for England from the mildly hysterical to the apoplectic. The button that we in Scotland are using more and more is the volume button to turn down some of that nonsense.
	While that is merely irritating, it starts to get a bit more serious when it comes to news coverage, which is increasingly irrelevant to public life in Scotland. The crux of all that is the need, desire and real requirement for a Scottish 6 o'clock news that will adequately reflect Scottish public life and political life post-devolution, with our own Scottish Government.
	The history of that campaign has been protracted and is one of the greatest stories of political subterfuge in the past few years. We witnessed the actions of the former director general, John Birt, who took it upon himself to make it a political mission to stop the "Scottish 6" happening. He saw it as a great threat to the Union of the United Kingdom. To support his cause, he involved the most powerful allies he could, including the Prime Minister. John Birt is clear in his autobiography what he got from him. He went to the Prime Minister, who was quick, as ever, to grasp the case. "Let's fight," the Prime Minister said. He of course enlisted the help of Peter Mandelson, who at the time was Minister without Portfolio, and his most trusted aide-de-camp, and he worked with the BBC on a plan of action to stop the "Scottish 6".
	That was later confirmed in the diaries of Lance Price when he recorded on Friday 30 October 1998 that
	"John Birt has been in touch. He wants to stop BBC Scotland doing their own six o'clock news on TV and wants help leaking a survey showing most Scots don't want it."
	It was collusion at the highest level between the Government and the BBC to stop a "Scottish 6". That is the campaign that the "Scottish 6" was exposed to. It is entirely at odds with the commitment in the BBC's royal charter. It is intended to be an independent corporation. That is why it remains such a hot issue. Most recently, the new director-general of the BBC once again ruled out a "Scottish 6", saying that there was no clamour in Scotland for such a service.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman says that that is a hot issue in Scotland. I have been an MP only since October, but I have never had one letter or heard from one constituent, one friend or one individual on the subject.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not engaged in debate in Scotland on that. It is supported across the political spectrum, not just within political parties, but in civic society as well. There is a determination that a "Scottish 6" is a requirement. Opinion polls clearly show that the majority of the Scottish people want it. Let me assure him that come the run-up to the next Scottish parliamentary elections, we will hear a lot about the future of Scottish broadcasting. We believe—this is fundamental and important—that we require our own broadcasting in Scotland to develop the talent in our creative industries. There is a great source of people working within the television sector in Scotland.
	Concessions were given. We were denied the "Scottish 6", but were given "Newsnight Scotland"—a 20-minute opt-out at the end of "Newsnight". Some of my less charitable colleagues refer to it as Newsnicht, but it has been supremely successful. It has more viewers than the traditional UK-wide programme. People are tuning into "Newsnight Scotland"—

Chris Bryant: People in Scotland.

Pete Wishart: Yes, of course.
	Those viewing figures are reflected across the spectrum, whether it is "Reporting Scotland" or the ITN version. People are turning on and tuning in to see Scottish news coverage because they believe that it is important that their national life is seen on the television.
	It is a challenge to the BBC. Why does it not accept that? I have written to Scottish Television to say, "Get ahead of the BBC on this one. If you provide a Scottish 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news service, you could steal a march on the BBC. Grasp the thistle. Go for it, Scottish Television." It would find that it could probably steal a march on the BBC by securing the viewers for the rest of the evening.
	Furthermore, we can do that on radio. We have the supremely important and successful "Good Morning Scotland" programme, which competes very effectively with the "Today" programme—in fact, it beats it in terms of listeners. They want a diet of Scottish news in the morning and it had some 11.2 per cent. of audience share in Scotland in 2004. The question has to be asked: if we can do that so successfully on radio and corner such a large share of the market, why can we not do it on television?
	We then have to ask: what do Scottish viewers get out of the 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock bulletins? Aberdeen university asked that question, researched it, and came to the depressing conclusion—not very much at all. Just 2 per cent. of stories on the 6 o'clock news network could roughly be called Scottish compared with 34 per cent. of those that could be considered English. It found that there was probably 10 times more English cricket on the BBC 6 o'clock news than there was Scottish politics. We are constantly served a diet of irrelevant news stories, which headline the 6 or 10 o'clock news. They are to do with English health, English education or English criminal justice, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish people. In fact, they are as irrelevant to the Scottish people as the health and education policies decided by the French Government.
	The people of Scotland pay their fair share of the BBC licence fee and are right to demand that BBC programming reflect their interest on an equally fair basis. There is at least recognition— [Interruption.] Does the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland want to intervene?

David Cairns: No.

Pete Wishart: There is recognition at last by some of the people and players in the BBC. The former national governor for Scotland said that there was "some way to go" in the BBC
	"to properly reflect the devolved nature of Scotland in national programming."
	Michael Grade at last recognises that there is
	"an imbalance and a lack of sensitivity"
	towards Scotland in the BBC's coverage of the UK in its national news bulletins. Quite, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is not just in the core areas of news and sport that Scotland is short-changed by the BBC. We are told that the new licence fee—the massive inflation-busting hike—is to pay for all the new interactive services that are supposed to be put in place, but many of my constituents cannot access the new digital services. However, they will be asked to pay an increased licence fee.
	We have also looked at the disparity of what is collected in Scotland through the licence fee and what we are given back in return. In 2003-04, the licence fee raised was £2.798 billion, of which the Scottish 8.5 per cent. pro rata contribution was £246.2 million. However, Scotland has 9 per cent. of all UK households, suggesting that the licence revenue from Scotland could be as much as £251.8 million. In contrast, BBC Scotland's income was a mere £160.4 million, of which £10.1 million came from external sources. Under the current arrangements, Scottish broadcasting expenditure is £32 per person. If the full revenues were realised, Scotland's figure could be up to £50 per person.
	If we compare like-sized countries throughout Europe—comparing Scotland to, say, independent Ireland or Denmark—it is clear that less money is spent and fewer jobs are created in Scotland's creative sector. RTE in Ireland, for example, employs 2,169 people and DR in Denmark employs 3,464 people. That compares with 1,427 employed by the BBC in Scotland. Clearly Scotland is getting a poor return from its licence fee contribution under the devolved settlement, in which broadcasting remains under the control of Westminster and the BBC is controlled from London. If every pound paid by Scottish licence payers were reflected in jobs, Scotland would see an additional 690 broadcasting jobs for no additional cost.
	A distinctive BBC in Scotland is now absolutely required to allow us to promote our indigenous culture and to portray Scotland to the rest of the world. A distinct channel would be our window to the world, reflecting our people's priorities and playing an integral part in everyday Scottish life. By establishing a sustainable television industry north of the border, high-value jobs would be created, boosting our economy and offering opportunities for the skilled media graduates. The charter review provides an opportunity to go down that road, making the BBC in Scotland truly autonomous, giving Scotland control over its broadcasting, increasing the capacity in Scotland and ensuring that the BBC in Scotland reflects the cultural life of our nation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is already a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I notice that the time left for this debate is getting shorter, so perhaps Members would like to reduce their comments and then more might be successful in catching my eye.

Michael Wills: I will take heed of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I start by declaring an interest. In my previous profession as an independent television producer, I benefited from BBC commissions and suffered from its management.
	There has been agreement on many things across the Floor of the House in this debate. Of course the BBC must be efficient; of course any increase in the licence fee must be justified; of course the management of the BBC must be transparent; and of course the BBC must not crowd out competition in a very fast-moving industry. There is general agreement, too, that the BBC is an excellent national institution of which we can all be proud—but I am concerned that there has been relatively little discussion this afternoon about the source of that excellence: the people who work in the BBC. It is no accident that the BBC is so excellent. Good broadcasting and communications are the product of training and experience in a centre of excellence, and the BBC is the major source of that for the entire industry in this country.
	Any efficient market must operate within an infrastructure that is often not provided by that market. That is the case in broadcasting and other communications industries, and in this country the BBC is the major source of that infrastructure. For generations it has acted as a centre of excellence, training some of the brightest young people in this country and giving them the experience of making programmes—letting the talent flourish in a secure environment. That is largely as a result of the existence of the licence fee. We would be very foolish indeed to do anything that jeopardised that centre of excellence, because it fertilises the entire industry.
	When we talk about crowding out, unfair competition and everything else, I hope that Members will remember that it is the BBC that enables the market to work so well by providing the talent and training the talent that everybody needs. When we consider the public value test and the market impact assessment, I hope that we will also remember the role of the BBC in providing the infrastructure. When we look at the independent sector—not much has been said today about its role; I speak as a former independent television producer—I hope people will not be deceived by any belief that it can provide the breadth of training and expertise that the BBC can provide.
	Of course the independent sector has a role to play—I was grateful in my previous life when that role was extended, as I benefited from it—but we should not go too far. It is an ephemeral and polarising industry, which is highly segmented and driven by very short-term considerations. It cannot take the long-term perspective or train people and give them experience in programme making as the BBC does across the piece. Many hon. Members have today rightly characterised the industry as fast moving, and we cannot preclude the BBC expanding into such areas in order to provide the experience and expertise necessary to fertilise the industry as a whole.
	I hope that when we consider the motion we will reflect carefully on how the Government have tried to balance all those different perspectives. It is a very difficult job. My hon. Friend the Minister made a cogent and compelling argument for why the Government have taken the approach that they have. They have the balance right; their approach will enable the BBC to continue to flourish as that centre of excellence and as an organisation that will give the country the talent that it needs for the creative industries to flourish. I therefore hope that the House will vote against the Opposition motion.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who, as he said, benefited very much from the largesse of the BBC—and also did his bit to support the career of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) when he was a journalist.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's point—indeed, I was going to make it myself—about the cross-fertilisation of the BBC and the private sector, but with the greatest respect to him, his experience is based on broadcasting and programme making, and the problem that I want to address in my remarks is the enormous expansion of the BBC into areas where hitherto it has not had a role. That expansion has been driven by new technology. There are those who advocate that the BBC should certainly be playing a role in those new areas, but the House must be aware of the hugely damaging impact that the BBC's expansion might be having on creative industries in those new areas. I certainly take on board the point that, as Salford media city gets under way, the BBC will act begin to as a pump primer for many new technology industries, but I want to put the other side of the case, about how it could inadvertently undermine some successful private companies in this country.
	In the debate in the other place on the House of Lords Select Committee report on the media, the Government spokesman said that the BBC had to operate in a market without strangling or unduly compromising the competition, and I agree with every word. It is welcome that the Government recognise the importance of scrutinising the BBC in that area. However, the power of the BBC has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. In some areas, the BBC is becoming the Roman Abramovich of the content-broadcasting digital world. It has a huge amount of financial muscle and can quite easily outspend its competitors.

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. I accept his point, but he characterised me wrongly. I accept that the BBC can crowd out new industries. Indeed, as an Education Minister I fought unsuccessfully to try to prevent it from doing just that in one sector. Does he agree, however, that it is important that the BBC is in such areas, partly to provide the pool of talented people who can if necessary leave the organisation to set up creative industries in this fast-changing world?

Edward Vaizey: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I would add that the BBC is now drawing on a pool of talented people who gained their experience in the private sector. There is cross-fertilisation—and the BBC's role in education is precisely what I want to talk about.
	Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said that the BBC was crowding out the private sector because it was driving out mediocre and bad firms. I am very much looking forward to writing to the chief executives and employees of the two firms to which I am about to refer, which are being crowded out, to let them know that a senior Labour Back Bencher considers them to be mediocre and bad people.
	The two companies that I am thinking of are RM plc in my constituency—a classic British success story, which was started 30 years ago by two graduates and now employs 2,000 people—and Harcourt Education, part of the Reed Elsevier group, which is based just outside my constituency and employs many people. Both of them, as the hon. Member for North Swindon is aware, are successful providers of educational software, but they face a significant threat from BBC jam. We could have a separate debate on BBC jargon and names, but BBC jam—formerly the BBC Digital Curriculum—provides a broadband learning service for five to 16-year-olds. It was launched in January 2006, after extensive consultation and approval by the DCMS in January 2003.
	At the time the industry warned that BBC jam would be anti-competitive, and would threaten the existing commercial market and drive out innovation and diversity. To their credit, the Government accepted that argument, because the DCMS said that
	"the proposal would have had a significant: impact on the market, potentially disproportionate to the evident public benefit, in the absence of measures which would prevent such an impact".
	To mitigate that impact, the Government set out 18 conditions, the fourth of which stated:
	"The service must innovate continually, and exploit the extensive archives of the BBC and its media-rich resources, and promote technological and pedagogical experimentation. The service, taken as a whole, should be distinctive from and complementary to services provided by the commercial sector."
	Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that people who know the service well do not think that the BBC has exploited its extensive archives, or provided a complementary service.
	In summer 2005, the content advisory board wrote to the BBC expressing concern about the development of BBC jam, and questioned whether the service complied with the fourth condition. That board was set up by the Government, and its members include officials from the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry. DCMS approval for BBC jam included a requirement that
	"the BBC...work closely with the...Content Advisory Board".
	In summer 2005, the board recommended that BBC jam be subject to immediate review to address the question of whether it had complied with the fourth condition. In February 2006, however, Lord Adonis, a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills, rejected that recommendation. On 7 March, in a written answer to a question that I had tabled, he confirmed that it was "too soon" to review the service.
	BBC jam will be launched in full in September 2006. Industry sources estimate that its advertising budget is £3.5 million—three and a half times the advertising budget of its nearest private sector competitor. That figure does not, as far as I am aware, include the promotion and cross-fertilisation of programmes in the BBC family—a practice that has become all too prevalent. Should we be worried that a big beast has moved into the sector? On the surface, the BBC is about to offer primary schools free broadband digital content. That sounds fantastic, but in fact that content is not free, because it costs the taxpayer £150 million a year. If the service is successful, it will be at the expense of jobs, opportunities and innovation in the private sector, and it will damage leading global businesses in the UK.
	The provision of educational software to schools is not simply a matter of sending a pack to schools, because the companies that I have mentioned have enormous experience in the field, and work extremely closely with schools and other organisations to provide technical support, know-how and training for teachers. The BBC, however, is in danger of creating a monopoly. It has blundered into the area without careful thought, simply because it has the money and resources to do so. That small example, which is close to home as it affects my constituency, is symptomatic of the new BBC. People who worked for the BBC used to be prepared to accept lower pay in return for greater job security and a better pension. Now, however, people who work for the BBC earn as much as people in the private sector, if not an astonishing amount more. The salaries received by Jeremy Paxman and Jonathan Ross are not simply a matter of tabloid tittle-tattle, because they go to the heart of what is happening in the new BBC. As a matter or urgency, the Government should make the BBC publish a list of salaries, as they are another example of BBC largesse distorting the market.
	There has been extensive discussion of the BBC's coverage of the World cup. That, too, is an example of its largesse, as it has three times as many technicians and reporters in Germany as ITV. The BBC has therefore not made the case for an enormous increase in the licence fee.
	In conclusion, we should look at the role of the private sector in public service broadcasting. There is false consensus that the BBC alone can undertake public service broadcasting; if it does not operate in a particular field, it is thought, a public service is not available. I bumped into the broadcaster Henry Bonsu two days ago. He left the BBC to set up a radio station for a black audience, because the BBC thought that a black audience wanted only music and entertainment, when in fact it wanted talk, politics, debate and discussion. He has set up a digital station—Colourful on the Sky platform—thus providing public sector broadcasting that does not cost a penny of taxpayers' money. I hope for his sake that he is not too successful; otherwise in a year's time the BBC will set up a rival and drive him out of business.

Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to participate in our debate and intend to be brief so that another Member can contribute.
	I congratulate commercial broadcasting organisations throughout the United Kingdom, and not just Scotland. In the spirit of the contributions from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), I shall consider whether the BBC contributes to the well-being of broadcasting and whether there is cross-pollination. We have excellent commercial broadcasting, simply because of the existence of the BBC, which drives up standards. In our debates, we must focus on transparency and the cost to licence fee payers while supporting the BBC and the innovations that it hopes to achieve.
	The White Paper on the BBC outlined clear pathways in respect of what the BBC is about, which is high-quality programmes that are challenging, original, innovative and engaging. Those are qualities that we can all sign up to, and they offer a clear opportunity for the BBC's future. In the few years preceding the White Paper, we began to wonder about that future, but I firmly believe that this debate will demonstrate that it is very safe.
	I well remember that a constituent of mine, Mr. Wheeler, launched a one-man campaign to get himself on to the BBC board of governors, because he was very concerned about its lack of openness and transparency. He had an absolute hatred of the irritating little logo that appears in the corner of the screen from time to time—many Members present probably share that view—often in the middle of an important programme. Mr. Wheeler will greatly welcome the new plans for the BBC, because they very much involve what he was looking for: a champion and a proper voice for licence fee payers, to ensure that there is no muddling of their views.
	We may not be actually pleased to pay the licence fee, but, as with most of the bills that we receive, we know that we have to. However, we have to make sure that it is worth paying, and this debate is about ensuring that we understand that point. We must keep a careful eye on the most vulnerable groups, who may have difficulty paying their fees. Although this point does not relate strictly to the BBC, I sincerely hope that we will look carefully at the criminalisation of licence fee payers. I do not believe that people should not pay the licence fee simply because they cannot be bothered, or because they do not think that they need to, but we should take a genuine look at those for whom paying is a major problem.
	The problem with today's debate is that the biggest issue in broadcasting has not been raised: the demise of "Top of the Pops", which is a very serious matter. Looking around the Chamber now, I see quite a few Members who must have watched the show at a particular time. However, although its demise is sad, I completely understand the reason for it. This is an opportune moment to reflect on its demise and to realise the difficulties that the BBC faces. For many of us who grew up in the 40 years since it was first broadcast, "Top of the Pops" was the only way to get to know exactly the sort of music to listen to, and who was fashionable and what they were wearing. Young people today have a very different panoply of media to go to, which demonstrates the challenges facing the BBC.
	I have noticed that there is a growing interest in podcasting. It is now possible to get John Humphrys on tap; to be frank, that would not be heaven for me, but it is a different way of using our media. We need to respect and understand why the BBC has to change, and why Members of Parliament need to take a close interest in these issues on our constituents' behalf. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about the question of Members consulting constituents on these issues, because we are interested in their views and want to put them forward. We also want the BBC to thrive and flourish.

Philip Dunne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), and I congratulate her on bringing the passing of "Top of the Pops" into this debate. She is right say that that illustrates that programming has to change and evolve regularly. It is extremely rare to find a BBC programme that has endured as long as "Top of the Pops", and personally, I see its passing as a sad reflection of my advancing middle age, as much as anything else.
	In the time available to me, I should like to touch on a few points, the first of which is the size of the licence fee. The Minister said that the Government were going to take time to get it right and that the proposed increase would not be excessive. I regret to say that he did not tell us the criteria by which that increase will be judged, or the methodology that the Secretary of State intends to use in arriving at the eventual figure. The Minister did claim that the licence fee had declined as a percentage of household income in recent years—I think that that was the comparison he made; I fail to recall exactly what period he was referring to—but that is not a very spectacular claim when the cost of media hardware and software has been falling around the world. It is because costs have been coming down, thanks to technological advances, that there is such a proliferation of alternative outlets for media use, so there is no great argument over whether the licence fee, as a proportion of household income, should be coming down. By definition, it should be, so such a decline is no justification for the above-inflation increases that the BBC is proposing.
	Why should the BBC get the generous settlement that it seeks for the next seven years? It is looking for twice inflation, guaranteed for seven years. In the context of any other economic endeavour, that would be extraordinary. Across the commercial sector, any sector would be delighted to have a guaranteed source of income of twice inflation during an era of rapid price deflation in most of the markets in which it operates.
	Let us compare another sector, the water industry, which is subject to regulatory oversight by a regulator, Ofwat. Water bills are affected by the K factor. In the first years after the water industry was privatised, that meant inflation minus a K factor. Subsequently that has changed to a positive K factor, but not to the level sought by the BBC. All that took place when the water industry had an enormous capital expenditure obligation to fulfil each year to renew its decaying pipe infrastructure, which had been in significant decline. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) tell us what comparators the Government will use when they come to set the licence fee?
	In an intervention on the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), I raised the issue of transparency. I very much welcome the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) to bring the BBC within the remit of the National Audit Office under the next Conservative Government and to allow the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise all spending of the licence fee, and not just by permission. I was disappointed by the Minister's reaction. He was signally unable to give a single example to support his contention that that would mean some undermining of editorial integrity. I will take up his generous offer and write to him, to give him an opportunity to explain what he has in mind.
	There is no doubt that as technology constantly evolves and the outlets for BBC output expand, there is a need for regulatory oversight of this increasingly substantial amount of what is effectively a tax, as we have heard today. That in itself justifies the full scrutiny powers of the National Audit Office.
	I shall touch briefly on two aspects of what the licence fee should cover. The Minister spoke about digital switchover. It is appropriate for the BBC to have a responsibility to secure coverage for those who are paying for the service. I raise the matter with an eye on my constituency and my own household. At present, analogue access is poor on both sides of the Welsh border, including in my constituency in Shropshire, where many households, including my own, do not receive a clear signal through an aerial.  [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) includes Shrewsbury in that category. I am sure he is right. In my home it is not possible to receive BBC Radio Shropshire either, because of the topography.
	At present, I understand, there are no plans for the digital signal to expand its coverage when the analogue signal is switched off. It is entirely reasonable that part of the increase in licence fee should be used to bring TV coverage to people who are paying their licence fees, so that we achieve 100 per cent. coverage. It is extraordinary in the 21st century that we are proposing a new system of technology that does not allow for universal coverage.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Philip Dunne: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I have very little time.
	On the second service aspect, Labour Members referred to the pilot local TV service that has been introduced in the west midlands, covering six counties, including Shropshire. For hon. Members who are not familiar with it, the service provides a 10-minute per hour magazine-style feature of four to six packages. It is a high-quality service, as one would expect from the BBC. It is welcome to those of us who occasionally feature on it and, I assume, to those who are able to view it.
	The service is of considerable concern to the commercial media outlets. Representations have been made by local newspapers in particular, whose revenues are under pressure from the decline in advertising revenues, about which we have heard. It is important that a market impact assessment be undertaken on the impact of the local TV service before we find ourselves setting up a tax-funded monopoly that crowds out other local outlets.

Tobias Ellwood: It will take me about one minute to express my thoughts.
	I am glad that we are having this debate, although I am curious about where the Secretary of State is today, because we have still not had a response from the Government on that front.
	We are all products of the BBC, which I grew up with. One of my heroes was Brian Cant on "Playschool", and I am sure that everyone was moved when John Noakes's dog died on "Blue Peter". I also remember when "Nationwide" flummoxed us all by giving us the impression that spaghetti grows on trees. We take an interest in the BBC not only because we are taxpayers, but because it has been part of our lives throughout the past few decades.
	Why has the National Audit Office been ruled out of having an accounting profile in looking after the BBC? The Minister was asked twice to give an example of when the editorial content of the BBC would be challenged if the NAO were to play a role.
	Although the debate has been thorough, we need another, because we have identified more questions than answers. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) will reflect on some of those questions when he winds up. We still do not know how the trust will be made up, how accountability will be established, why the NAO will not have a role or who will pay the spectrum charge.
	Time is running out, but I hope that we will have more opportunities to debate this important aspect of British society.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has summed up our proceedings this afternoon by pointing out that the debate has raised more questions than answers. Judging by the list of speakers, the debate has been popular, and it is regrettable that they had so little time because the Minister took nearly an hour of Opposition time at the Dispatch Box.

Shaun Woodward: rose—

Malcolm Moss: No, I will not give way. It is normal courtesy for the Minister who is leading on an Opposition day to say why the Secretary of State is not present.
	The Minister has said that the BBC will get the settlement that it needs to deliver public service broadcasting—a sentiment with which we can all agree—but without proper debate the charter review and licence fee settlement will not enjoy universal or even majority support. He boasted of the unprecedented consultation conducted by his Department, but are the Government and the BBC actually listening? We cannot have a proper debate without openness and transparency, particularly in the definition of what actually constitutes public service broadcasting and in the detailed scrutiny of the figures and planning assumptions behind the BBC's application for an unprecedented increase in its licence fee.
	Indeed, the Minister seems miffed that we have called the debate, which was warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Eccles (Ian Stewart). It is no argument to say that the Government are calling a debate on the BBC next month, because that debate will cover only charter renewal and not the licence fee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has already mentioned the DCMS website, but the Minister failed adequately to deal with his point. The section of the DCMS website entitled "BBC charter review" states that the charter review is expected to be completed in mid-2006. It also states:
	"Mid 2006 Licence Fee level agreed"
	and—this is the crunch point—
	"Mid 2006 Parliamentary debate on Charter and Agreement."
	In other words, both the charter and the licence fee were expected to be on the table for next month's debate.
	On 6 June, however, the Secretary of State, who was speaking to the all-party group on the media at a Channel 4 bash, said that the decision would be made towards the end of the year. Why did the media section of  The Guardian state that that comment scotched speculation that a deal might be concluded before Parliament goes into its summer recess? The "speculation" was on the DCMS website. Mid-2006 does not mean October and November, but June and July—when Parliament is sitting, not when it is in recess.
	The DCMS website gives the game away. Something has happened between the publication of that and what the Minister said today and the Secretary of State said at the drinks bash the other evening. The real reason is that the DCMS has been rocked by criticism from the independent commercial sector. The PKF report commissioned by the Department, which is yet again mired in an ongoing difference of opinion with the Treasury, concluded:
	"there are a number of areas which point towards a significant need for discussion in regard to the BBC's Red Book bid for the licence fee settlement for the next period. We consider that our detailed report contains specific information for the Government to progress discussions with the BBC which would point to a lower settlement than currently sought. There are, however, a number of areas, especially in relation to digital switchover, where figures can only be finalised following policy decisions by Government".
	In his excellent opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon called for several questions to be answered. We need proper scrutiny of the BBC through the National Audit Office, not the voluntary scheme that we have at the moment. What is the point of the NAO being told by the BBC when it can and cannot look into financial matters? The Minister said that the NAO should be involved in licence fee negotiations. Perhaps the Minister who responds could clarify what he meant by that. He said that there could be an attack on editorial independence, but he did not answer a straight question and give some examples of what he meant by that.
	Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box next month, when we have the debate on the charter review, that all the figures featured in the Government's negotiations with the BBC will be public and transparent so that everyone can see what is going on? There has been a powerfully expressed view in the media that the bid offered by the BBC in October 2005 requesting the RPI plus 2.3 per cent. settlement presents no more than a superficial wish list of spending demands that is not grounded in adequate evidence or justification. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Review of the BBC Charter said that the BBC's costings were
	"rudimentary and could be significantly reduced...the BBC has admitted that the figure in the bid was based on the easiest calculation possible rather than on a real estimate of how best value could be provided."
	The PKF report found that
	"costings used to support the investment programme are generally best estimates...in the past five years...the BBC...has delivered only marginal cash releasing organizational efficiency savings".
	Several Members pointed out that the extra money going to the BBC in future might distort the marketplace and stifle innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that it would crowd out competition and asked why Ofcom will have only a limited input in looking into BBC practices. According to the way in which the charter review is worded, the BBC Trust will act as both poacher and gamekeeper. Licences for online services seem to be lumped together whereas, as several hon. Members have said, each online activity should have its own specific licence.
	A report published last month by the consultancy, Indepen, commissioned by ITV, said that the BBC's bid risked fuelling "super-inflation" in the recruitment of on-screen talent. It also claimed that the proposed above-inflation rise in the licence fee would hit lower-income families harder and contradicted the BBC's claim that the cost would fall as a percentage of disposable income.
	I have had only 10 minutes and there is much more to say, but I need to leave 10 minutes for the Under-Secretary's winding-up speech. It is a pleasure to see the Secretary of State in her place. However, it would have been far better if she had been here at the start to deal with the Government's lack of response on the subject.

David Lammy: The debate has been stimulating, and pre-empts the debate that we scheduled for next month. Some constructive—but also not so constructive—contributions were made on a range of issues.
	During the charter review, we found a great appetite for discussing the BBC among the range of stakeholders and the public. It is clearly one of the nation's most trusted and loved institutions, which touches the lives of almost everyone in the country. That appetite has been reflected in the breadth of debate today and the wider parliamentary and public discussion that has taken place in the past two and a half years. Hon. Members will have another opportunity to debate the new charter and agreement in full. That will provide further openings for hon. Members to make their points.
	The policies in the White Paper that are given life in the new charter and agreement provide for a strong BBC, independent of Government but accountable to licence fee payers. They provide for a BBC that will co-exist with a vibrant and dynamic commercial sector, which is the envy of the world. They also provide for a BBC that can continue to fulfil its role as a trusted guide, bringing the benefits of new technologies to audiences.
	The BBC has always played such a role, from the earliest days of radio, to black-and-white and then colour television, to FM radio, digital television and radio and the internet. We have much for which to thank the BBC. In many ways, it has grown the market. That is why I do not agree with the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who contests the idea that Mark Thompson should be ambitious to ensure that the BBC competes with the best in digital and online services.
	We have heard a great deal today from Opposition Members, especially the hon. Members for East Devon and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), about a lack of parliamentary involvement in setting the licence fee. As my hon. Friend the other Under-Secretary set out in a compelling case, apart from the fact that Parliament has the right to object to changes in the licence fee, the process so far has been characterised by an openness not previously experienced under any Government. I remind Conservative Members that since the BBC's inception, most charter reviews have been conducted under Conservative Administrations. There has been more openness under the Labour Government than ever before.
	The public have told us that they do not want Parliament to have more control than it currently has. That raises wider issues beyond the scope of the debate, but it means that the focus of the argument has been, rightly in the Government's view, on the public rather than the parliamentary sphere. However, in that context I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on the BBC Charter Review in another place, whose thorough scrutiny over a lengthy period has contributed much to the debate. I must not overlook the work of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, whose review in 2004, towards the start of the process of charter review, set the tone. We are especially indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), whose characteristically robust approach was of considerable influence.
	Today, my right hon. Friend set out, in an insightful and intelligent speech, the opportunities and challenges that the BBC and the media more widely face as technologies change. We agree that the BBC must be able to respond and even lead the changes, to stay relevant to licence fee payers. It is also important that the BBC should not stifle growth and development in the commercial sector. These principles are at the heart of the new charter and agreement.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was supportive of the new arrangements to the extent that he agreed that we should keep the licence fee. He also agreed about the role of—

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

David Lammy: I will not give way, given the short amount of time that I have available.
	The hon. Member for Bath agreed that—

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

David Lammy: I said that I would not give way—

Hugo Swire: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister is not prepared to give way, that is all that can be done about it.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the House, will you tell me whether I am right in saying that this debate does not have to finish at 4 o'clock?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely right, but it is in the gift of Her Majesty's Opposition to determine when the debate finishes, and I have had an indication of when they wish that to happen.

David Lammy: I want to reassure the hon. Member for Bath that the new trust will be a powerful body that will have ultimate responsibility to the licence fee payer, as defined in article 9.3 of the agreement. Hon. Members have raised the issue of the delay in the announcement of the licence fee, but we have never specified the date on which we would make that announcement. We have said that this is an important issue and that it is right that we think about it clearly and work with the BBC and others to get it right. We will make that announcement in due course—

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

David Lammy: I have said to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he can understand English—that in the four minutes that I have available, I will not give way. I want to deal with the points that all hon. Members have raised.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford raised the issue of the role of Ofcom and the BBC Trust in relation to the public value test. We recognise that Ofcom has a key role to play, in that it will provide the market impact assessments that will be an important element of the public value test. The hon. Gentleman says that he accepts that. The trust will be the body that is responsible for upholding the interests of BBC licence fee payers, so it is right that it should make the final decision about whether a new activity should go ahead. It must make such decisions objectively, after consultation, and it must publish the reasons for its decisions. The hon. Gentleman also—

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am left with no alternative but to raise a point of order as the Minister will not let me intervene on him. He has raised a number of points, not least on the delay in the announcement of the licence fee. As you have heard, this was announced by the Secretary of State—who has now honoured us with her presence— albeit at a drinks party rather than in Parliament. Neither she nor any other Minister has given any proper explanation as to why they were unable to attend this debate. I understand that the Secretary of State was at the lottery monitor conference this morning in London, but she was spotted at a nearby restaurant between the hours of 1 and 2 o'clock, when she could readily have been attending this debate to do her job—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The appointments of any Minister or any Member have nothing at all to do with the Chair.

David Lammy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford raised the issue of the BBC's income increasing by £1 billion. Much of its additional income is due to its own efforts to reduce evasion and cut collection costs, which must be a good thing. Over the period, the range of services offered by the BBC has grown and licence fee payers and the public say that they support that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) gave an engaging speech about the importance of the BBC's move to the north-west to that region. Underlying his comments was his deep concern, as we would expect, with issues of social inclusion. We rightly welcome the latest indications from the BBC governors that they are serious about moving significant amounts of production to centres outside London. The governors' announcement on 15 June to give Salford preferred bidder status—
	Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con)  rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes that the decision on the next licence fee settlement will represent best value and be announced in good time to take effect before the current settlement expires in April 2007; further notes that the decision-making process has been one of unprecedented public consultation and transparency and that the settlement should ensure a strong and independent BBC; further notes that the costs of switchover will be one of the considerations in setting the level of the licence fee; welcomes the strengthening of the arrangements for the National Audit Office's involvement with the BBC; and recognises that changes to the level of the licence fee are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny by the negative resolution procedure.'.

Planning

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House shares the concern of communities throughout the United Kingdom over the scale of residential development on garden land; recognises that the density and speed of such development can cause irreparable damage to neighbourhood character and cohesion; notes that the loss of garden land threatens urban biodiversity and environmental sustainability in towns and cities; further notes that garden land developments rarely exceed the threshold at which affordable housing must be provided and displaces the regeneration of derelict land; believes the official classification of garden land as brownfield to be inappropriate and misleading; and therefore urges the Government to amend all relevant planning guidance to remove gardens from the definition of previously developed land and thereby return decisions over proposed garden land developments to the discretion of local planning authorities.
	I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for choosing to respond to this debate. A reshuffle always gives a Government the opportunity to revisit the effectiveness, or otherwise, of their policies. The creation of the new Department presents an opportunity for the Government to close a loophole in the planning process and put an end to the blight of inappropriate garden development.
	After all, since there can be no personal suggestion of a U-turn on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister, few would criticise the new Secretary of State for wanting to put her stamp on the Department. What better way is there to do that than by reversing an unpopular and destructive policy?
	I think that the Secretary of State knows, deep down, that the prioritisation of gardens for development is unfair to local communities and unsustainable for the local environment. She has intervened many times in her constituency to prevent such development from happening, as I have done in mine, and, like me, she may well have found her constituents being overruled by the Deputy Prime Minister. Her reason for getting involved might be the same as mine—that the present planning guidance is failing communities, which are powerless to prevent gardens and urban green spaces from being developed.
	The planning guidance is also failing first-time buyers, who simply cannot afford the expensive apartments that are being built, and it is failing residents because there is a lack of supporting infrastructure. Finally, it is failing future generations, as they will have to live with the environmental legacy of the rush to build on our urban green spaces.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend talks about our legacy, but does she agree that all hon. Members are the stewards of our nation's future? Cathedral cities such as Lichfield or market towns around the country represent everything that this country has to offer in terms of architectural heritage. The helter-skelter construction on gardens and other areas is destroying our neighbourhoods.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend, and I commend to the House his article in this month's edition of  Town and Country Planning magazine. His defence of the city of Lichfield clearly demonstrates that he may have even more heritage to defend than other hon. Members.
	I am trying to be generous, so I do not believe that the outcome of the planning guidance is the one that the Government sought. The problem has arisen because three separate elements—the classification of back gardens as brownfield sites, the prioritisation of brownfield land for development, and the density targets for new housing—have been superimposed on each other. It is the confluence of those policies that has created unprecedented levels of garden development.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proliferation of flats built as infill or on garden land is especially damaging to our communities, as it puts immeasurable stress on the infrastructure? The roads in the south-east are already too congested, and there is a much higher demand for water and for secondary school places.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend correctly anticipates the points that I plan to develop. I think that he will be pleased by what he hears.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady mentioned three factors that she thinks are behind the pressures. Does she accept that people's expectation of greater space standards in their housing may also be a factor? What is her view about people who want to enlarge their existing home to build a conservatory or an annexe in their garden?

Caroline Spelman: Under the Labour Administration, I am extremely concerned about people contemplating building an annexe to their home or a conservatory. With his expertise in local government finance, the right hon. Gentleman is probably only all too aware that such extensions are precisely the attributes of a home that his Government have every intention of incorporating as part of their council tax rebanding exercise.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No, I want to continue.
	The Government's amendment to our motion compares the situation in the 1980s unfavourably with the present, but according to a written answer of 23 May the proportion of residential development on previously developed residential land has risen—from 11 to 15 per cent. since 1997—and nobody in the Chamber can have failed to see the impact.
	This debate is not an argument about whether we need more houses; the Government know that we have repeatedly said that more homes must be built. House building has not kept pace with changing lifestyles and demographics, and that needs to be remedied. We are debating where, how and what should be built.

Tim Loughton: Is my hon. Friend aware that something more insidious is going on in places such as Worthing and areas in the south? Developers are emboldened to offer premiums of at least 50 per cent. on the market value to the first house in a street of premium family homes. They then go next door and do the same deal, going as far along the road as possible doing the same thing. They apply for planning permission, which is turned down by the local council as the local planning authority, so they appeal. Their appeal is upheld on the basis of the Government's new density policies and a block of flats is built, with 30 or 40 new inhabitants and many extra cars, and the extra stress on the infrastructure causes havoc.

Caroline Spelman: Sadly, I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend says. Such things are happening all over the country and, interestingly, are the subject of a BBC Online blog, where numerous correspondents file real concerns that are exactly the same as those he has just expressed. My only surprise is that the Government seem to have ignored those views and have stopped listening to the people who are voicing those real concerns.

Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems to which she refers, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) described in the south-east, exist all over the country—nowhere more so than in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Secondly, does she agree that it was a pity and a serious mistake for a Government Whip to object to the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), which would have made a significant contribution to resolving the problems that she airs so well?

Caroline Spelman: I share my hon. Friend's great concern about the way in which the Government's housing policy perversely results in the neglect of considerable tracts of land in the great city of Birmingham, which both our constituencies shoulder, in favour of the back garden development that has ravaged his constituency and mine. I echo his comments about the obstruction by Government Whips of an important private Member's Bill. I hope that it will not be similarly obstructed at its Second Reading on 14 July.

David Wright: I am trying to work out the position of Conservative Front Benchers. If we are going to reduce housing density and develop only, for example, on the footprint of demolished properties in urban areas and not on back gardens, presumably, if the Conservatives are to meet our agreed house building targets, we will have to identify more land elsewhere.

Caroline Spelman: If the hon. Gentleman reserves his judgment until I have made my speech, it will become quite clear to him where I envisage many more extra homes being built.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend should not leave the point about why the Government are doing this. The Government know perfectly well that if they are to bring brownfield sites forward, they cannot make the cashback arrangements that the Treasury wants to get out of development. They have got to put their money where their mouth is. This is an excuse by the Government not to rebuild Britain on brownfield sites, because the Treasury wants the cash.

Caroline Spelman: My right hon. Friend's considerable expertise in this area gives him an advantage over many Members in the Chamber in understanding what goes on in Government when such important strategic decisions are made. I will add one other note of scepticism: the incorporation of back gardens into the brownfield definition and the application of that through planning guidance have enabled the Government to come closer to their own set target for brownfield building. In the target-driven culture that we live in, that has furthered their own ends.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Caroline Spelman: I want to make a little more progress. I will take more interventions later.
	Our discussion of where homes should be built could hardly be more topical, because today we had an announcement from the Government office for the south-east. It wants the house building target that was originally set to be increased by 60 per cent. I hope that the Government will understand why there is such deep concern in communities up and down the country about the way in which their housing policy, with its perverse incentives, is being interpreted.

James Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why local communities feel so disempowered in the whole debate is the fact that decisions are being taken out of their hands? The decisions are being taken in Whitehall by people who do not know the area or the pressure on local communities.

Caroline Spelman: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is correct to point out that the Government's housing policy and the way in which power has been exercised has damaged trust in the planning system.

Frank Field: Like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I represent a rather beautiful area. In the Birkenhead area, Wirral local authority attempts to get developments on the poorer sites along the river, but the developers want to go into the lusher areas of Prenton, Oxton, Claughton and Bidston. The local authority tries to defend its position of ensuring that development goes on in the poorest areas, but if the local authority does not agree with something, all those decisions are appealed and practically every case is lost. That is what is so wrong about the present set-up.

Caroline Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and perfectly understands the situation. No doubt that is why he and 38 of his colleagues on the Government Benches have signed our early-day motion. We tabled our original early-day motion as the motion for this debate because it has attracted such strong support from Members on both sides of the House. Surely the Government must sit up and listen to this cross-party consensus.

Greg Clark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Caroline Spelman: I am going to make a bit of headway. If my hon. Friend would like to wait, I think that he will like my next comments. I would especially like to commend him for bringing a ten-minute Bill before the House to change the classification of gardens from brownfield. We wish him well with the Second Reading on 14 July and we thank him for the extensive research that he has conducted.

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her warm words. She referred to the early-day motion. I wanted to point out for the record that it was co-sponsored by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor)—I am grateful for her support—and signed by at least two Liberal Front-Bench spokesmen. It is thus a cross-party early-day motion, rather than just a Conservative one.

Caroline Spelman: I hope that the difference with this debate will be that there is a strong cross-party consensus. We want a change to the law because people throughout the country are angry about gardens in their neighbourhoods being carved up and built on. The buildings that go up in the gardens are not just two-storey houses or bungalows, but often blocks of flats.
	The first place that people who are worried about a planning application should go is their local planning authority. However, planning authorities are hamstrung by a combination of the brownfield definition, prioritisation and density. However inappropriate the development and regardless of how much it will fundamentally change the character of a neighbourhood, a developer, as the House of Commons Library puts it, thus
	"still has every chance of success".
	The problem for planning authorities is that irrespective of the strength of public opinion, planning guidance and housing targets will virtually grant planning permission on appeal by a developer.
	The Minister for Housing and Planning recently said on the BBC programme "You and Yours" that it is at the discretion of local planning authorities to determine planning applications. However, as she well knows, that is simply not true. If an authority refuses an application, it is overruled by the Secretary of State. Now that we understand the cause, I want to examine the effect of the failure in the planning system.

Lembit �pik: Although it is a specialist area, is the hon. Lady aware that the same problem affects airfields, which, obviously, are large flat spaces that are attractive to developers. Several hon. Members will have experienced problems in trying to sustain an economically important airfield in their area. Owing to the changes to planning guidance, there is a risk that airfields might be treated as brownfield sites. Does she agree that the Government should clarify the situation? I should declare an interest in the matter.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the new planning guidance, which was sneaked into the debate on where and how we should build houses, has a centralist approach fundamentally at its heart. As he will hearif I get the chance to complete more of my speechI am passionate about how important it is for the re-empowerment of local communities that decision making should come back to where it should be: in the hands of local government.
	The most obvious effect of the perverse confluence in planning policy is the destruction of gardens and green spaces. Gardens are a unique source of biodiversity, but they are being lost for ever. Large houses, which are often of local historical interest, are being demolished and replaced by blocks of flats. Trees and hedges are being torn down to make way for access routes, and areas of urban green space are being bought up, enclosed by hoardings and built on. That is changing the entire character and balance of neighbourhoods throughout the country.
	The hon. Members who signed early-day motion 2130 were not subjected to an orchestrated postcard campaign or a covert campaign exercise. They put their names to it of their own free will. I believe that they were simply responding to constituents' letters and public meetings in their constituencies, and I applaud them for doing so. Hon. Members throughout the country signed the early-day motion, which proves that, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) aptly illustrated, the problem does not affect just the south-east. In industrial parts of the north and the midlands there is a proud history of family homes with attractive gardens. It must seem to those communities, which are already suffering from the decline in manufacturing, that even their heritage is being knocked down brick by brick.

Paul Clark: The hon. Lady talks about biodiversity. If she believes that the development of garden land threatens, as it says in the motion,
	urban biodiversity and environmental sustainability in towns and cities,
	does she, on the same grounds, reject the proposal by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the chair of her party's policy group on economic competitiveness, to concrete over the Medway estuary to build a minimum of 50,000 houses?

Caroline Spelman: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman; so far most of the interventions have not been of the point-scoring sort. The fundamental point, which I reiterate, is that the biodiversity in urban gardens and green spaces is often richer than it is in utilisable agricultural land.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Spelman: No, I will not give way. I want to proceed with the point about the demolition of our heritage.
	We were pleased to read reports today that the Secretary of State has had a change of heart about the demolition of some of the Victorian villas in Liverpool. I commend my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for regeneration, who has campaigned vigorously with other hon. Members to bring about that change of heart. We hope that it is a sign that the Secretary of State is minded to review quite a few aspects of her predecessor's policies.
	It is no secret that my constituency is heavily affected by development in gardens. In fact, almost half the brownfield development is on garden land. Feelings are rising so high in the borough of Solihull that more than 2,000 people have signed my petition calling for that kind of infill development to be stopped. Colleagues facing the same problem have urged me to make it a national petition, which we will do. Next time hon. Members are in a garden, I ask them to look around and imagine how it would feel if the land next door were developed and their privacy lost because they were overlooked.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Spelman: Just a minute.
	Perhaps hon. Members would put their houses on the market and move, but it is not so easy to do that if a bedroom is floodlit by 24-hour lighting in the car park of a neighbouring apartment block, or if effluent from new houses is making its way back up the drains because the existing drainage system cannot cope. Those are genuine examples from my constituency, and they have a devastating effect on the quality of life. The impact is not just practical, but social and environmental.

Yvette Cooper: Does the hon. Lady agree that we should build more homes? In particular, does she agree that we need to build 200,000 new homes a year by 2016?

Caroline Spelman: The Minister is an intelligent woman and I have no doubt that she has perfect hearing. She must have been distracted when I stated at the outset, as I have on numerous previous occasions, that we agree that we need a lot more homes.

Yvette Cooper: rose

Caroline Spelman: If the Minister lets me continue my speech, I shall explain where we see that house building happening.
	In some places, the result of garden development has pitted neighbour against neighbour. Communities have been divided by it. People who have worked hard and saved to buy a house with a garden are now looking anxiously over their borders for signs of development. What hope is there for a family that wants to preserve its garden as a safe refuge where children can play or as an oasis after a hard day's work, when on either side high-density housing invades that space?
	What of the environmental impact? Back gardens are crucial habitats for all kinds of wildlife, much of which has often migrated there from the countryside. The destruction of those precious ecosystems, which house everything from badgers and foxes to squirrels and birds of prey, should provoke outrage. Back-garden development is effectively turning access to nature and wildlife into the sole preserve of those who live in the country.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: Not at the moment.
	I find it ironic that the Government who introduced the idea of measuring birdsong as a key indicator of quality of life are now responsible for a policy that will do more than anything else to silence it.
	Garden development also brings with it the problems of infrastructure. Villages and urban areas are growing in an unplanned and erratic way, and the infrastructure cannot cope.

Helen Goodman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: Just one minute.
	Community facilities, like schools and doctors' surgeries, are not expanding at the same rate as population growth. The Environmental Audit Committee's warning that extensive house building is not sustainable where water is short is being flatly ignored. Without the necessary investment, we will simply not be able to service the increased numbers of power showers and dishwashers drawing on water supplies. Even where there are adequate water supplies, there is often inadequate drainage, and what of the roads and lanes on which the development occurs?

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Spelman: Just a minute.
	Public transport links are not sufficiently developed to service a fast-growing commuter population, and road congestion now goes hand in glove with garden development. The Department's obsession with planning the car out of new development merely results in cars littering the pavements, forcing pushchairs and mothers into the road. All that makes road crossing more dangerous, traffic congestion worse and residential areas ugly.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Spelman: I give way to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).

Helen Goodman: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Tory Members do not have a monopoly on representing beautiful parts of this country. In my constituency in Teesdale there are a large number of villages, and we face a problem that is the exact opposite from that put forward: the brownfield definition is too narrow. People cannot turn existing buildings into new houses in hamlets, and consequently we are having to build outside larger villages on greenfield sites.

Caroline Spelman: At no point did I say that one party had a monopoly on this country's beautiful landscape. If the hon. Lady has a problem with her Government's housing policy and it is not working for her, I suggest that she take her objections to her Secretary of State.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Spelman: I shall make some more progress.
	The communities that are now being asked to accommodate garden development were originally created with an infrastructure to support a particular population density. The Government cannot expect the same infrastructure to serve adequately a population often twice that size. The result is that everyone loses out one way or anothernot least those who are looking to get on the housing ladder, as I shall explain.
	In the past the Government have cited housing shortages and the need to help first-time buyers as a defence of garden development. I will now look at how, in practice, the policy works against providing the sort of affordable housing that the country so desperately needs.
	The problem with garden development is that far too often it generates houses or apartments at a price beyond the reach of first-time buyers. The reason is very simple: location, location, location. Houses with gardens large enough to be developed are mostly in areas where house prices are high. The result is that the new build is beyond the pocket of first-time buyers. We must also be clear that much of the development that is defended on the grounds that it helps first-time buyers is not generating houses for that market. The average price of one of those new flats in my constituency is 200,000well beyond the pocket of those on the waiting list for housing. Solihull borough, which has met its target, and half as much again, in each of the past five years, still has a waiting list of 5,000 people, most of whom cannot afford to buy what is being developed.
	Part of the reason for that is a misdiagnosis of the housing affordability problem. We welcome the aim of increasing housing supply, but the wrong sort of homes are being supplied in the wrong places to meet genuine need. The perverse consequence of an affordable housing quota for larger developments of 25 or more dwellings is driving the more lucrative option of garden development, which is below that threshold. What is so frustrating is that that rush to develop gardens has meant that exciting new opportunities for regeneration are being disregarded.
	We have a vision of building a lot more houses and homes as new garden suburbs for the 21st century, replacing the urban dereliction of the near-city ring. [Hon. Members: Where?] I hear hon. Members asking where. Nearly all British cities are configured on such a pattern; perhaps the nearest such city will come to Members' minds as I speak. Those cities have a regenerated central business district. In Birmingham it is the Bullring; in Manchester it is the result of the unfortunate consequences of a bombing; in Liverpool we see a regenerated city heart, as we do in Newcastle and in Leeds. Surrounding the central business district, virtually within spitting distance, is a ring of dereliction. That is the challenge for regeneration.

Nicholas Soames: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend, but does she accept that none of those developments is sustainable without proper investment in infrastructure? Whether we are talking about an inner-city area or East Grinstead in my constituency, where 2,500 houses will be built on the Government's whim without any additional investment in infrastructure, how will such development improve people's quality of life?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend gave me advance notice of his intervention, and as he rightly suggests, the Government have applied the word, sustainable, to communities that are not in the true sense sustainable.
	First-time buyers are often of an age at which they want to live close to the city centre, with all its cultural and social advantages. They want to carry on living in the city where they studied or where they work and have a network of friends. There is a great opportunity to meet that demand with affordable housing for first-time buyers between the city centre and the more affluent suburbs. Garden development creates more commuting journeys from the outlying towns and villages to the main economic hubs, but cities will become more sustainable if we shorten the commute.
	Near-city development is better suited to the stronger and more developed infrastructure already in place in our cities. There is a strong economic rationale for such development, as those sites are on former industrial land that has fallen into decay. With imagination and willpower, however, it could house apartments, shops and entire communities in new urban villages that enable people to find their feet as home owners. Our approach reflects that housing life cycle.  [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members asked me to explain where those homes would be built, and I am doing so. I suggest that they listen, then they will learn.
	In our vision, first-time buyers could start with an affordable house in a new garden suburb, move somewhere slightly larger in a new urban village when they settle down with a partner, then scale up to a family-sized house. Other people will want to move further out to a town or village with more space and a larger garden, so we need to create those choices. That brings me back to my starting pointgardens. The sad irony is that young people aspire to live in houses with large gardens and in neighbourhoods with green spaces, which are being lost. Of course, that pattern does not apply to everyone.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I should like to reach the end of my thesis and explain where and why those homes could be built.
	That pattern does not apply to everyone who wants to get on the housing ladder. We have championed the cause of more affordable housing in rural areas for some time, but unlike the Government, we want to empower local people to decide how genuine local need should be met. We want to restore local democracy, and the emotive issue of housing is a good way of showing that we mean it. I have spent a considerable time discussing what we will do, but I shall conclude by setting out what the Government should do.

Yvette Cooper: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I have already accepted one intervention from the hon. Lady. In fact, I have been [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has said that at this point in time she is not prepared to give way.

Caroline Spelman: I think that I have been generous in accepting interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that those interventions have been made by Members from all parts of the House demonstrates the level of interest in the subject.
	May I focus on what the Government should do? The simplest and most effective measure they could take is to amend planning policy statement 3 so that gardens are no longer classified as brownfield sites; that does not even require primary legislation. Local authorities should be allowed to decide the appropriate density for their community. Once a site is returned to its proper classification as a garden, there is nothing to stop someone applying for planning permission, but it is the council's responsibility to judge the application on its merits. As a result, we would lift the threat to our urban green spaces and remove the fears of people living in the shadow of unwanted development.
	The Secretary of State must surely understand that gardens are not what people accept as brownfield sites. If they are to have any faith and trust in the planning system, the classification needs to be changed. The planning system should serve, defend and promote the interests of the community, but her predecessor's control of that system undermined public confidence. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created to serve the man, whereas the Secretary of State's new Department has been created to serve the community and local government, as can be inferred from her title. This is her chance to live up to that title.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I call on the Secretary of State to move it.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	notes that the definition of previously developed land in draft Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) was first introduced in 1985, and that the proportion of residential development on previously developed residential land is now significantly lower than it was at that time; believes that more land needs to be made available for housing in future to meet rising demand and deliver sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities and environmental sustainability in towns and cities; further believes that local authorities need to bring forward appropriate land with proper regard for sustainability, local environment and quality of design within existing communities as well as new developments; further notes that draft PPS3 includes tools and powers for local authorities to turn down inappropriate development in gardens as well as other areas; and commends the Government's policy to make better use of land for new homes by increasing the proportion of housing on previously developed land from 56 per cent. in 1997 to 73 per cent. in 2005 and provide greater protection for greenfield land as a result.'.
	I thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for her warm words at the beginning of the debate; in fact, I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling this motion. At last, housing is moving up their list of priorities. I did a little research in the run-up to the debate, and it appears that about two years have passed since we last heard from the Conservatives on housing during an Opposition day debate. I understand that the hon. Lady led for the Conservatives on this issue then, as she does again today.
	Two years ago, the Tories were concerned about too much urban sprawlthat too many houses would be built on the outskirts of our towns and citieswhereas today, they are concerned that too many homes might be built within our towns and cities. Some Members might see a contradiction, but at least it is consistent with the overall direction of Tory party policy: a different day, a different policy.
	I listened with great interest to the hon. Lady, and so that no one gets the wrong impression of what is actually happening, it might be useful if I set out some basic facts.

David Drew: As a supporter of an early-day motion dealing with this issue, I was somewhat surprised that I did not hear a single mention of the Affordable Rural Housing Commissionother than a passing referencein the entire speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). The reason why market towns have experienced much more development is that we have strangled and stopped development in our villages. The only way that we can begin to address that problem is to allow villages, through empowerment, to have a proper level of development. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the right approach?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and, as I am sure he is aware, the draft planning guidance that we are considering allows that approach to be developed.
	Let me set out some basic facts. First, between the late 1980s and today there has been a significant decline in the percentage of brownfield development on previously developed residential landland that includes back gardens. I will develop that point later. Secondly, there has been no change in the definition of brownfield land since 1985, when the current definition was first used by the Conservatives for the purposes of land use planning statistics.
	The hon. Member for Meriden made some interesting points. There have been relevant changes to planning policy guidance over the years, and, indeed, more are in the process of being introduced. As she readily acknowledged, this Government have been much keener to encourage local authorities to seek out brownfield sites for development rather than greenfield sites. Why? Because re-using land that has already been developed reduces the need to use new greenfield land and helps regenerate our cities and towns by bringing often derelict land back into use.

Several hon. Members: rose

Ruth Kelly: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), and then I will make some progress before taking further interventions.

Tobias Ellwood: The facts of the situation in Bournemouth are very clear: the South West regional assembly is telling Bournemouth to build 20,000 more houses. This is a case of filling in and working with the developers, who simply buy up back gardens, then depart. I have checked with the Government office for the south-west, and not one penny is being spent on infrastructure in Bournemouth, which highlights the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). There is a discrepancy here between development and building up the infrastructure, which has been echoed in all parts of this Chamber. What are the Government doing about this issue?

Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly that more money ought to be spent on supporting infrastructure, perhaps he and his party will start supporting the planning gains supplement on which we are consulting.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the planning guidelines in respect of social housing on small development sites? In London the planning authorities often insist on 15 units or more before social housing is included, which in inner urban areas like mine means that no social housing at all is built on such sites. Is she prepared to look into that and, if necessary, to take powers to ensure that we get a fair share of social housing on very small sites?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In recent years there has been a big increase in the development of more affordable homes and social homes in London, but he also makes the point that we should consider using smaller sites for affordable home building. We are considering that in some detail.

Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative councils such as those that my constituency covers are complicit in measures to circumvent the spirit of the planning guidance, by encouraging and working with developers to build small developments of less than 15 units precisely to avoid a social housing obligation? Westminster city council made strong representations to avoid having to meet the Mayor of London's 50 per cent. planning target, so Conservative councils do not go along with the spirit of the Conservative motion.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend speaks from her personal knowledge of these matters and she is right to suggest that there are Conservative councils that do not want to build the homes that people need, particularly affordable homes.
	Let me set out the facts on brownfield development. We have been successful at making brownfield land available for development. We have seen the proportion of housing on brownfield land increase from 56 per cent. in 1997 to 73 per cent. in 2005, far surpassing our targets. This has created more homes, but on less greenfield land.

Greg Clark: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Ruth Kelly: No. I will make the argument, then I will take an intervention.
	The increase in brownfield development and in density, from 25 per hectare in 1997 to 42 per hectare in 2005 means that it is possible to build 1.1 million new homes across the southern regions on less land than that on which the Tories planned to build 900,000 homesa saving in greenfield land equivalent to the size of Norwich.
	The hon. Member for Meriden points to the impact of planning guidance on back gardens. I shall address that now. Let me quote an example from planning policy guidance:
	Homes with large back gardens are a common feature in many urban, suburban and village areas. Sometimes it may be acceptable to develop back gardens for new housing which is in keeping with the character and quality of the local environment.
	That was not my guidance. It was not the Deputy Prime Minister's guidance. No, that was guidance provided by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in 1992.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that appropriate safeguards must be in place to prevent inappropriate development in back gardens. Indeed, it was this Government in 2000 who gave local authorities the power to turn down inappropriate development in back gardens or elsewhere.

Caroline Spelman: I appreciate the right hon. Lady giving way. Is she aware that her own Housing Minister admitted on 21 March that classifications under the Conservatives' last Administration had no status in planning regulations and gained status only in 2000 when her own party was in government?

Ruth Kelly: I am about to come on to how planning policy guidance changed and the impact that that had on the development of brownfield land and previously residential land. The planning guidance introduced in 2000 stated that there should be a clear priority for brownfield development over greenfield development. However, it also included safeguards for quality. It stated that
	considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality.
	It went on to say:
	Local planning authorities should reject poor design particularly where their decisions are supported by clear plan policies.
	Indeed, contrary to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Meriden, there was no presumption that brownfield land had to be built on simply because it was brownfield. In fact, the guidance specifically asks local authorities to consider a wide range of matters in deciding whether to allocate land for housing and whether to grant planning approvals. The range of matters includes the location and accessibility of sites, the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including, for example, social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.

Richard Benyon: On the safeguards provided by the wording, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is sitting on the Front Bench, wrote a letter to  The Daily Telegraph not long ago saying that the safeguards were sufficient to enable local authorities to protect sites. When I showed that letter to planners in West Berkshire council, however, they said that they were being as robust as possible, but whenever they feel that a development is inappropriate in the way that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has just described, it gets overruled on appeal because of the ODPM wording. The matter is centrally controlled, and the safeguards described in the letter from the Minister for Housing and Planning, which the Secretary of State has just voiced, are not happening on the ground.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman should have waited a few moments; if he looks at what has happened as a result of the changes in policy guidance over the years, the facts speak for themselves. In 1992, when the previous planning guidance was introduced, the percentage of brownfield development on previously developed residential land was 40 per cent. In 2003the last available countthat figure was 33 per cent. In absolute terms, land released for development in that period fell from 978 hectares to 966 hectares, which means that the increase in brownfield land for new housing has been in the use of non-residential brownfield land, such as industrial, commercial and vacant land.

Greg Clark: If the Secretary of State had studied the statisticsunfortunately, she has started to make partisan party political pointsshe would know that the proportion of gardens used for brownfield sites fell in every year under the previous Conservative Government, whereas it has risen in every year since 1997.

Ruth Kelly: That is simply not the case and the facts speak for themselves. The increase in brownfield land for new housing has been in the use of non-residential brownfield land.
	In December, my Department began consulting on new planning guidance. As part of that review, we have been talking to local authorities, residents and others, including listening to the views of hon. Members, about whether local authorities should have more flexibility locally in deciding what land to bring forward for development. That review will include back gardens, just as it will include all other land that is potentially available for development.
	The new draft planning guidance proposes even stronger safeguards for the quality of urban space:
	a key consideration should be whether a development positively improves the character and environmental quality of the area and the way it functions.
	It also explicitly states that
	although residential gardens are defined as brownfield land, this does not necessarily mean that they are suitable for development.

Andrew George: In the spirit of political consensus mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I am pleased that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the trend is not new. It is certainly not new in my constituency, where gardens have been built on over the past 20 years according to my records. If the Secretary of State accepts that planning is, sadly, fuelled more by greed than by need, will she accept that people do not want buildings in their back gardens, but they do want the money? Have the Government reflected on the point that significant premiums are added to land value, and that the community might want to share the additional income generated by the award of planning permission?

Ruth Kelly: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is beginning to ally himself with our case that we should try to capture some of that increase in land value through the planning gain supplement. I am pleased that he has arrived at that conclusion.

Chris Mullin: I shall be sorry if this business about back gardens deteriorates into a party political argument, because there is a problem even in a place such as Sunderland, where we have acres of brownfield sites but still have developers flying in helicopters looking for little bits of green space that they can fill in. Every week for the past few months, my local newspaper has carried a large advert calling for people with large back gardenswe do not have a lot of themto come forward and offer them up for development. There is a problem, whatever the origin of the rules and whatever they happen to say, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look seriously at the guidance when the time comes.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In December, we launched a review of the draft planning policy guidance examining whether we can give more flexibility to local authorities to bring different bits of land into use at different times. That should allow them to sequence development in the way that best meets the need for housing in their local area, while ensuring that developments are appropriate to it. The real question is this: which party is willing to take the tough decisions necessary to provide sufficient new homes to meet the needs of our communities?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am glad to hear that the guidance is being extended and that more safeguards are being put in place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). This is a big issue in my constituency, where inappropriate development on garden sites is taking place, particularly with regard to design and layout. Our local planning department says that adequate safeguards are not in place and queries what the Minister for Housing and Planning said in  The Daily Telegraph. Will my right hon. Friend clarify how we can get through to planning officers that they have the power to refuse inappropriate development in gardens?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point. Local authorities already have the power to refuse inappropriate development, and they should make use of those powers. The question is whether we can give local authorities more flexibility to sequence the land that they bring back into use for development in particular ways. The new draft planning policy guidance on which we are consulting attempts to do that. That should introduce new safeguards into the system.

Andrew Gwynne: As well as the inappropriate developments that have been mentioned, there are popular urban areas, such as parts of my constituency, that physically have no development space. We are almost completely surrounded by green belt that we want to protect, so that often, sensitive and sympathetic infill development is the only way to provide housing where people want to live.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point with which I completely agree.

Nick Hurd: The Secretary of State should be aware that her comments could be interpreted by my constituents as suggesting that they are deeply worried about a problem that does not exist. Can she be specific in telling the House what proportion of new homes are built on gardens?

Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we collect figures for the percentage of new dwellings built on previously developed residential land. That fell from 20 per cent. in 1990 to 15 per cent. at the last available count. We also collect figures for the land used for new dwellings as a percentage of brownfield land, and that has fallen, too. The definition includes back gardens and patios, and houses that have been demolished and rebuilt. The figure shows a significant downturn since the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Margaret Moran: My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the need for flexibility in planning. Does she agree that it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) appeared to dismiss the possibility of home extensions in areas such as Luton, which are green-girdled and have no space even for infill development? A large proportion of the community in my areaespecially ethnic minority communitiesis overcrowded and requires extension through back gardens to alleviate the severe problem.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes the important point that extending a house can often be the simplest and best way of meeting a need for more housing space and preventing overcrowding.
	The question that confronts us today is: which party is willing to make the tough choices and decisions to deliver the extra homes that are needed? In the past 30 years, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of households but a 50 per cent. drop in house building. Current projections suggest that household formation will increase by 209,000 a year until 2026. In contrast, approximately 168,000 additional homes were provided last year. That gap is unsustainable.

Mark Hoban: Yesterday, the Government office for the south-east produced a report, which was commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that set out options for housing development in the south-east. One of the options envisaged building 45,000 houses a year. Does the Secretary of State rule that in or out?

Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the independent panel, not us at this stage. It is absolutely right for each region and local community to ask themselves the hard questions. How many homes do we need for the future? Where will we build them? How will we meet housing need? Are the houses in the places where people genuinely want to live?

Anne Milton: rose

Nicholas Soames: rose

Ruth Kelly: I must make some progress.
	If we continue to build only at the current planned rate, the proportion of 30-year-old couples who are able to buy a property will drop from approximately 50 per cent. today to 30 per cent. Do Conservative Members want that to happen? If not, how do they plan to tackle the problem? Where do they want the new homes to be?
	The hon. Member for Meriden referred to building in garden cities, but she opposes development in the Thames Gateway. How credible is that?

Caroline Spelman: rose

Ruth Kelly: Perhaps the hon. Lady has changed her mind.

Caroline Spelman: I have made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion at the Dispatch BoxI am happy to supply the  Hansard referencesthat we support the Thames Gateway project. We have reservations about the infrastructure because it is not clear even to those who are strong supporters of the project how the infrastructure will be secured for such an important development. We recognise the need for it and we have always supported it, so can we nail the myth once and for all?

Ruth Kelly: Absolutely not. If the hon. Lady is not prepared to say where the investment will come from to build the extra homes, she frankly does not support the homes. We have clear policies for a planning gain supplement to fund the necessary infrastructure for development. As she knows, we are working with the Treasury in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review to examine infrastructure needs.

Nicholas Soames: I agree with the Secretary of State's comments about hard choicesthey are, indeed, hard choices. Will she make the hard choices that her Government have failed to make about infrastructure in areas where the Government impose onerous building targets without providing one extra penny of infrastructure spending? Will she make those difficult decisions and enable us to deliver the homes in a sustainable climate?

Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman knows of local authority areas where there is a genuine demand for new homes, but they want investment from the Government to support the necessary infrastructure, he should invite those local authorities to approach the Government and bid to be a new growth point. Yesterday, I announced the conclusion of the bidding round for new growth points. Many local authorities expressed an interest, but 22 had worked out detailed bids. They were keen for new houses to be built, and included the Tory-led local council of the hon. Member for Meriden, which proposed new developments. In total, the proposals represent 80,000 new homes by 2016 on top of what is already planned.  [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that she supports that increase in housing supply.

Caroline Spelman: I appreciate the Secretary of State giving way. This issue directly concerns my constituency. I have always supported my local authority's endeavours to regenerate a council estate of 22,500 people for whom low-cost housing is in very short supply. We propose to build 5,000 new houses, and that proposal is very definitely for affordable housing.

Ruth Kelly: I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady supports that initiative. However, she will not make it clear to the House whether she supports the outline proposals in Kate Barker's report to increase housing supply to 200,000 units a year by 2016 in order to close the gap between demand and supply. If the hon. Lady wants to commit herself to that policy today, I hope that she will choose this moment to intervene on me to tell the House that that is the case. She shakes her head, which is very interesting.

Caroline Spelman: In our exchanges, the right hon. Lady is always careful to put on the record her interpretation of my words and my body language. However, I think that she might not have completed her homework in preparing for this debate. If she looks at our previous debate on housing, which focused extensively on the Barker review, she will see that we gave the review a considered response. She will also see that I clearly said that we wanted to build more housing. Our dispute with the Government involves the where, the what and the how.

Ruth Kelly: That is very interesting. I think that the hon. Lady is now sticking to the position that she outlined in  The House Magazine last year, when she wrote:
	We need to build more houses, but not on the scale that Barker recommended.
	She is saying that there are questions about whether we need 200,000 more units. It is also interesting that her junior housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said recently:
	It's the case that the number of new households in Britain every year is something like 200,000 but we're only building about 150,000 or 160,000 every year. So that means there's a gap...between the number of new people who need houses and the number of homes being built.
	So the Conservatives' junior housing spokesman is quite prepared to accept that we need to build 200,000 more homes each year, but the hon. Lady refuses to sign up to that ambition.
	One test of a political party is whether it is prepared to take the tough decisions necessary to meet the demand for new homes. The Conservatives are happiest to focus on why we should not build new homes. Today, they have singled out building in urban areas on plots between existing houses. Perhaps next time they will admit that this Government have a better record than theirs on safeguarding the quality of such developments, on giving local authorities the tools that they need to take sensitive decisions, and on concentrating more housing on brownfield land. Perhaps they will also sign up to this Government's ambition to meet the housing demand that now exists, for the benefit of future generations.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome the Secretary of State to the debate. I also welcome the fact that we are debating this matter today, although I would have welcomed the debate that the Conservatives first promised even more. The subject was to have been the failure of the Government's housing and planning policy, but that has rather quickly been slid over in favour of the removal of gardens from the brownfield definition. They started off with a titanic ambition but ended up in the life raft.
	A number of outside bodies will also be disappointed by the rather narrow definition that the Conservatives have given to the debate today. I received a briefing from the Home Builders Federation this afternoon that had been issued on the assumption that we were going to debate the wider issue. However, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State introduce that wider issue, because it is important that we take the broader context of housing and planning fully into account when considering this motion.
	The motion is worthy, appropriate and of great importance. Members' contributions so far have shown that the subject greatly engages us. That is precisely why my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), supported by 10 other Liberal Democrat Members, brought her Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill to the House. I have to say that my hon. Friend's Bill was somewhat bolder than the Conservative Opposition motion today. It was not restricted solely to gardens, but looked into the protection of parkland and recreation spaces as well.
	Having heard what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, I hope that Conservative Front Benchers will give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull that when her Bill is debated on Friday 20 October they will ensure that the dinosaurs on their Back Benches do not hinder, obstruct or delay the measure's coming into law. Her Bill exactly encapsulates the points that the Conservatives are now making. In introducing the Bill, she said that
	by designating people's gardens as brownfield land, planning guidelines have had the unintended consequence of enabling developers to target windfall developments in preference to true brownfield sites.
	She said of developers:
	If they can develop a soft target, instead of tackling polluted and more difficult inner-city true brownfield sites, they will do so.
	In her telling phrase,
	It is like putting a goat in a garden and telling it to eat thistles and not the flowers.[ Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1112.]
	That is the essence of the case being made in today's debate.
	We have to ask exactly what led the Conservatives to change the definition of today's debate from the broader one that they announced last Thursday. I did not hear clearly enough from them whether they have satisfied themselves in the meantime that the Government's housing policy is successful after all and does not require criticism. Do they now believe that the Government's planning policies are right, whereas last Thursday they thought that they merited debate because they were wrong? Is the development of back gardens all that they can find fault with in the Government's stewardship of Britain's environment, rural communities and leafy suburbs?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman may not think that developments in back gardens are important enough to trouble the House with, but I can assure him that the defects in the planning policy guidelines and rules are blighting the lives of many of my constituents in Chipping Barnet. It is an enormously important issue to them.

Andrew Stunell: I do not know whether the hon. Lady had the opportunity to hear what I said at the beginning of my speech, but I made the point that, although this is an important topic, the House also deserves the opportunity to reflect on the broader issues. I welcome the fact that Secretary of State brought some of those broader issues into play. If I consider the difference between the title announced by the Conservatives last Thursday and the motion tabled for debate today, I am tempted to echo the familiar words of the England manager, First half good, second half not so good.

Brian Jenkins: On that very point, is the hon. Gentleman as amazed as I am at the full title of today's motionRemoval of gardens from brownfield definition? Will the redefinition safeguard gardens from further development? I do not think so, and it would be the same if they redefined them as greenfield development. Surely what we should be interested in is the type and quality of the development and the degree of imposition it represents on the lives of people who live alongside that development. We should be debating not how to define the land, but how to empower councillors to safeguard people from such developments.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Whether we are talking about gardens, greenfield development or inner urban development, what matters is what is done with the land.
	One of the reasons why the Conservatives might have tried to narrow the focus of the debate is their sheer embarrassment. It started with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) back in February, when he spoke of taking
	a fresh look at what we mean by a greenfield site.
	He made it clear that developing what he called marginal scrubland could be an option to revive decaying suburbs. I am not sure whetherto take my football analogy a bit furtherhe suffered a twisted knee or concussion, but he has not played that tune since.
	In April, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that the current planning system was bananas and that it was promoting a belief that we should
	build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.
	He derided it; he described it as bananas; and he slagged off Labour for not building enough homes. I presume that, some time between last Thursday and today, someone at Tory headquarters did some background research and advised the hon. Member for Meriden that to proceed on the broader front risked their looking very foolish indeed.

Caroline Spelman: The decision about what to debate sits fairly and squarely with me. The hon. Gentleman says, First half good, second half bad. He clearly did not like the fact that I went much wider into the question of urban regeneration and affordability in the second half of my speechI certainly expanded the debate much wider than just classification. However, I initiated the debate because of the cross-party support for a specific change in the law that he would like and that many of his hon. Friends signed up to, and the force of that cross-party consensus persuaded me that this was a good use of parliamentary time.

Andrew Stunell: Of course the hon. Lady is absolutely right: there is widespread cross-party support for the view that the guidelines should be changed. I would point out that 40 Labour Members and a significant number of my hon. Friends have signed the early-day motion. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull has presented a Bill precisely in the terms that the hon. Lady is discussing.

Greg Clark: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argumentwith some difficulty. Does he think that it is a mistake for the Conservative party to give hon. Members the chance to debate the motion, on which there is a widespread consensus? It is important that we know whether he would prefer not to debate it.

Andrew Stunell: I thought that I had made it very clear[Hon. Members: No.] Perhaps the problem is that I have taken too many interventions. Let me make a clear statement. I have made it very clear indeed that we should have had a debate on the planning and housing policies that this country has and does not have. In focusing on a narrow aspect of that, we have lost something in the debate. I very much hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will take a broad view of the issues that should be debated, so that we can take account of the wider context of greenfield development, which certainly includes urban regeneration, rural housing and the alternative to development of gardens.

Mark Hoban: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he intends to support our motion tonight?

Andrew Stunell: Yes, I will certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that, and if he allows me to proceed a little further, he will hear entirely what I plan to do and what I will recommend that my colleagues do.
	There is certainly a problemit is familiar to every MPand the fact that there is widespread support in the debate for the early-day motion and the two Bills that have been referred to so far illustrates that. The infilling and backfilling of larger gardens has been an increasing problem over the years in many areas, including my constituency, which is covered by Stockport council.

Andrew Gwynne: As a fellow Stockport Member, the hon. Gentleman will know that Stockport council's unitary development plan includes a local planning policy that is designed to prevent inappropriate developments in the large gardens of places such as Hazel Grove, Bramhall and Cheadle. Does he agree that that policy should not prevent wholly appropriate developments elsewhere in Stockport, especially in areas such as Reddish, where investment in housing is desperately needed?

Andrew Stunell: I am indeed a Stockport Member, although I am a member of a different party. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, and it is quite interesting. He and I could probably enlighten the House a good deal on the planning policies that apply in Stockport.
	As the hon. Gentleman says, for many years there have been planning applications in Stockport relating to back gardens. Councillors, when they have thought it appropriate, have tried to limit the damage, in conjunction with the communities in whose areas the applications have been made. Sometimes an application could be properly refused and sometimes it could be substantially modified, but the treatment of the whole curtilage of the home as housing land has too often meant that inappropriate development could not be resisteda situation already described by others. If it was resisted, there would be an appeal, the Secretary of State's inspectors would recommend that it be granted, and the Secretary of State would grant it.
	There have been some important successes in Stockport in the tackling of such matters. As the hon. Gentleman has said, every problem has a solution, but every solution has its own problem. Stockport is now officially full. All the planning applications that should be granted, according to the Secretary of State, have been granted. The present position is that no applications should be granted, which means that the council can refuse applications relating to garden sites. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that and the Secretary of State's guidelines have had the unintended consequence that the council cannot be flexible when it comes to Reddish. That, surely, is one of the key points to which the Government should respond. Even in one local authority planning area there can be fundamentally different circumstances, which must be dealt with by means of more flexible local policies.
	Our amendment, which unfortunately was not selected, refers to the need for affordable and sustainable housing. That seems to me a crucial matter which the Secretary of State's guidelines must take into account, but the Conservatives may have been a little too clear in their statement that such development was not permitted at present.

Nicholas Soames: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give us his interpretation of the word sustainable?

Andrew Stunell: I can certainly do that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I am referring to environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. Social sustainability means balanced communities in terms of demography and tenure; environmental sustainability means buildings with a very small carbon imprint; and economic sustainability means that employment and public services must be readily available to communities. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.
	Liberal Democrat-led South Shropshire district council has found a way of promoting both affordability and sustainability even on the smallest infill and garden sites. We in the House of Commons should take account of the flexibility and innovation of local planning authorities that have a mind to take such action. We should be saying Please go and experiment. Please find the policies that work for your area. Please listen to your local communities. Please take account of the local situation. Do not impose inflexible national guidelines that prevent any possibility of the right kind of development.
	I say to the Secretary of State, Please look at the circumstances in Stockport, which have been illustrated by two of us in this debate already today. Please look at the situation in South Shropshire district council. Learn from examples of the practical application of the existing policy and see what you can do with the revision of the guidelines.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about flexibility and reducing the threshold to incorporate social housing on small-site developments. Will he explain why Liberal Democrat-controlled Islington council has consistently refused to lower the threshold below 14 units, thus preventing the development of social housing anywhere in the borough? Is it because the council does not want to produce sufficient social housing, and that it would prefer simply to export the poor out of London?

Andrew Stunell: I am sure that Islington, like almost every other local authority in the country, has a rising council house waiting list. For example, Stockport has 13,000 council homes, and a waiting list of 6,000 households looking for social housing. The council would willingly provide more social housing units if it were given the finances and authority to do so.
	I want guidelines that are flexible and reflect the local community's legitimate concern to ensure that development is appropriate. The guidelines should also make it clear that any development should be sustainable, should protect biodiversity and should take into account legitimate concerns about local amenity. I have referred already to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, which I believe sets out very clearly the framework within which we should proceed.
	However, there is a serious case to answer on the broader issues. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister for Housing and Planning, will respond positively to the problems that exist, and explain how she intends to develop her policies to tackle them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be sympathetic on the specifics; she certainly should be, as she has taken plenty of trouble in the past to protect the interests of her constituents faced with similar problems. I am sure that she will want to ensure that the same protection is available to people in Stockport, Solihull, Meriden or anywhere else.
	I hope that the right hon. Lady recognises that her Department's responsibility for planning guidance and law on the one hand, and for building regulations and codes on the other, gives her a unique opportunity to bring together coherent and long-overdue policies to promote environmental sustainability, ensure the preservation of biodiversity and increase the affordability of housing.
	As part of that comprehensive guidance, the Secretary of State should also make it clear that any proposed garden developments must comply fully with those criteria and that they will be refused if they do not. That is what my colleagues in Stockport and south Shropshire are doing, when they consider it appropriate.

Brian Jenkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. He is very generous. Was he as pleased as I was to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say at the Dispatch Box that she would revisit the planning rules, with a view to redefining them so that we can be sure that developments in back gardens are appropriate and in keeping with the environment? She also said that she would do everything that she could to give local authorities the power to ensure that.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes a second very helpful intervention, and I thank him for it. I agree that it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to move on this question. There is plenty of movement to be had, both on the specific matter of protecting gardens and on the more general point about ensuring that housing development is sustainable whenever and wherever it is built.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend is making a good point. On 5 October last year, I wrote to the Minister for Housing and Planning about developments in gardens and was informed in her reply of 24 October:
	It is ultimately for local authorities to make judgments on the basis of all relevant information, weighing in balance the need for housing development, the need for wider housing opportunity,
	and so on, as my hon. Friend describes. However, when I showed that letter to my local planning department I was told that many of the applications it refused were given permission on appeal. Does he agree that that is a matter of great concern?

Andrew Stunell: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Many letters written by Ministers to Members of Parliament are in the same vein as the one that he received. They say that such and such a decision is a matter for local discretion. Whether we ask about schools, social services or planning, we receive the same letter and it is absolutely meaningless, because local authorities do not have the flexibility or authority, and certainly not the money, to deliver on the choices that Ministers say that they can make.
	The Secretary of State has a housing problem. An extra 500,000 families have been added to council house waiting lists since 1997 and 100,000 people are registered as homeless. As she said, the gap between homes built and households formed grows wider each year; it is substantial and will create ever-increasing problems of affordability and accessibility and for promoting sustainable communities, although I am pleased that she said clearly that she wanted to do something about it. She may hesitate to accept the motion, which we shall support. No doubt she will argue that to support it would in some mysterious way make the problem worse, but I urge her to recognise that bringing just a fraction of the 680,000 empty properties in England back into occupation would go a long way towards ameliorating the position, as would even half of the 1 million homes that her funded working group recommended be developed in commercial premises and over shops. If only a fraction of her working party's recommendations were implemented there would be a tremendous step forward in housing availability.

Margaret Moran: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman about bringing empty properties back into use. Does he acknowledge the fact that the Government have, for the first time, introduced targets to bring long-term empty properties back into use by 2010? But is he aware that Liberal-controlled Luton council could not even provide me with the number of empty properties in the borough so that I could ensure that the council is acting on the Government's intention to bring such properties back into use for homeless people?

Andrew Stunell: I am interested in the hon. Lady's comments, because I have in my hand a table showing the number of empty homes by region, subdivided by authority, so there seems to be no problem about finding that information. Perhaps the hon. Lady did not ask in a polite enough tone of voice.
	The Secretary of State should insist that when and wherever new homes are built they meet the highest environmental standards. Her Department must make a contribution to the Government's overall aim of reducing carbon emissions and limiting climate change and the way in which she exercises her important responsibilities on planning and building regulations, regardless of the site of the houses, will offer opportunities in that regard. Our housing stock should at least be at the same level as the rest of western Europe in terms of sustainability and the reduction of environmental impact. We must not simply go for cheap and cheerful solutions that are expensive for the environment.
	Sadly, the Government amendment is silent on those key points; it is bland, vacuous and self-congratulatory. In contrast, we need the Secretary of State to acknowledge that providing sustainable and affordable homes is a key task for her and the Government that she supports. Today's debate and the motion before us take a look at just a small aspect of a much broader major policy area that needs prolonged, thoughtful and urgent action.

Tom Brake: I think that my hon. Friend may be about to come to his conclusion. I wonder whether he hopes, as I do, that when the Minister responds to the debate she will set out clearly how she is going to shift responsibility to local authorities to give them much greater discretion over the decisions that they take, so that there will be no need for groups such as the Rotherfield action group, which is trying to stop four detached houses being demolished and turned into a development of 30 or 40 flats. We need to hear from the Minister how the local community can have its say on that matter, but also on other controversial issues such as telecoms masts.

Andrew Stunell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, except when he talks about responsibility. Ministers are only too willing to transfer responsibility, but they are not willing to transfer the power and money to implement those responsibilities. Surely that is what is needed.
	We have had a wide-ranging discussion so far and no doubt it will go further in the remainder of the time available to us. I hope that the Secretary of State will not waste the opportunity to make sure that her Department redoubles its efforts to deal with housing and planning issues to give us sustainable communities and a safer world to live in.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Work and Families Act 2006
	Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006
	Children and Adoption Act 2006
	HBOS Group Reorganisation Act 2006

Planning

Question again proposed, That the original words stand part of the Question.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Thirteen hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and there is less than an hour before the winding-up speeches. I just mention that so that hon. Members can try to exercise a degree of self-restraint in order to accommodate as many other hon. Members as possible.

Nick Raynsford: I will start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) on one point: the importance of housing as a subject and the expectations that many of us had when we first understood that there was going to be a housing debate today. We hoped that we would hear from the Opposition on a number of rather important issues. They include how we can expand the supply of new homes, both for sale and for rent, in areas where they are needed; how we can ensure that we have sustainable developments that will prove attractive for people to live in for many years ahead, and that we do not repeat the mistakes of some past patterns of development that have not proved satisfactory; how we can raise design standards and environmental performance in housing and so reduce carbon emissions; how we can help first-time buyers to get a foot on the ladder and extend opportunities for affordable home ownership; how we can ensure an adequate supply of rented housing for those who need or want to rent, rather than buy; how we break down some of the pernicious divisions between tenures that characterised much of 20th century housing policy; how we can ensure better provision for the homeless and for those requiring support and care, as well as a roof over their head; and how we can best continue to improve the conditions of poorer-quality housing and areas in need of regeneration. We would have liked to hear from the Opposition on those, and many other vital issues for housing, but, sadly, we were disappointed.

David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend add one more issue to his list? I am talking about how to bring the 680,000 empty houses back into useful occupation without that being depicted as the confiscation of the houses of widows who just happen to be in hospital at that moment. That is the level of debate.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an important point about empty properties. As I was indicating, there are many other issues in addition to those that I highlighted that could usefully be considered.

Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: No, I will not give way any more, because we are time limited. I am afraid that there is now the likelihood of a list system. If one starts listing things and gives way once, everyone else wants to get in to make their particular point. I will therefore take no further interventions.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise a point of order, but I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) would give way to answer this question. Given the right hon. Gentleman's entry in the Register of Members' Interests, does he think that it would help the House if he would declare it, if it is still accurate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We rely on all right hon. and hon. Members to declare any interest that they believe is relevant to the debate that is taking place. That is a personal matter for them.

Nick Raynsford: Just to avoid any possible uncertainty on the matter, I should declare that I am the chairman of the NHBC Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that makes grants to voluntary housing bodies and other organisations undertaking research in the housing field. I was a member of the board of the Notting Hill housing trust, but in case the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was thinking of that interest, I must add that I no longer am.
	Over the past 10 years, there has been a remarkable shift in the location and character of new housing development. Whereas new housing in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the Conservative party was in government, was characterised by sprawling development which was often poorly designed, of low density, usually on greenfield sites, usually exclusively for sale, and ate remorselessly into the countryside, in recent years there has been a dramatic increase of mixed tenure developments on brownfield sites, and a great step forward on the regeneration of many of our inner-city areas. There have also been real improvements in the quality of design and environmental performance. We have not gone as far as we should, but there have been very fine exemplars of good development.
	I recommend a visit to Greenwich to any hon. Member who doubts that. They would see there not only some of the country's finest historic architectureseveral hon. Members have praised the quality of the architecture in their constituencies, but I give way to no one in that regardbut exemplars of high-quality new housing development, such as the Greenwich millennium village and the regeneration of the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. They are clear illustrations of how wrong the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was to claim that garden development is diverting development away from the more appropriate regeneration of brownfield sites. There could not be a clearer illustration of how totally wrong she was, so I hope that she will come to see the fine regeneration taking place in Greenwich.

Caroline Spelman: rose

Nick Raynsford: I said that I would not take any more interventions, but I will give way to the hon. Lady because I referred to her.

Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I gave way to him during my speech. The site to which he refers is of course exceptional because everyone will remember it as the site of the dome. It is thus in a category of its own in terms of its need for regeneration.

Nick Raynsford: Again, the hon. Lady is wrong. There is not just the dome but the Greenwich peninsula, the Woolwich Arsenal and the Kidbrooke regeneration. There is a series of major sites on which we are seeing high-quality new urban development. The hon. Lady seems to shake her headshe does not want to know. Her whole attitude has been one of visceral hostility to new housing. We heard that for years during the previous Opposition regime, when she was given a fairly free rein to oppose housing developments. She now has to choose her words slightly more carefully, but she has the same message: hostility to housing.
	The quality of the Greenwich development should not be in any doubt. That development ensures that people have good-quality homes to rent or buy; the two types are side by side, and mostly indistinguishable. It is planned so that there is easy access not only to public transport but to schools, health centres and other public services. There is a stunning ecology park that is doing more for biodiversity and wildlife than was ever the case on that formerly polluted gasworks site. In summary, the exemplary new development has been created as a result of, and is an exemplar of, the Government's housing and planning policies. It is because of such developmentsand there are many morethat more than 70 per cent. of new homes are now on brownfield sites, compared with about 50 per cent. or less in the Tory years.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the proportion of residential development on land previously residentially developedland that might include former gardenswas greater in the 1980s when the Conservative party was in power than it is today. It is intellectually untenable for the Opposition to suggest that the increase in brownfield development in recent years has reflected the gobbling up of gardens in suburbia. That simply is not the case.
	There has been a serious oversimplification of the issues. The Opposition have tried to present the situation as a case of rapacious developers seizing and building on back gardens wherever possible. There are instances where that is happening, and that should be resisted. Inappropriate development in back gardens would not have my support. However, there are also appropriate infill developments that make use of land that has not been used well, and is in locations where there is good access to transport and other services, which makes it sustainable, and the quality of the area is enhanced as a result. We should distinguish between the two.

Greg Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: I do not have time; we are time limited.
	As I made clear in my intervention on the hon. Member for Meriden, there are a large number of proposals to extend existing properties, perhaps to provide more accommodation or a conservatory, which involve building on garden land. Many of the home owners who aspire to have more space and who would like the opportunity to have an extension or conservatory should be warned that if the Opposition had their way, that development would become much more difficult, because there would no longer be an assumption that any such site might be regarded as brownfield.
	Hon. Members should bear that in mind. The Opposition's simplistic and misleading approach is in danger of distorting the debate. We need to try to achieve high-quality development that meets good-quality design standards, including the high environmental standards that we want in our housing development, and makes sure that communities work together and are vibrant and successful. That was very much the thrust of planning policy guidance note 3, which was issued in 2000. The Opposition now decry it, but I take a certain amount of pride in it because I was the Minister with responsibility for planning when it was prepared and issued. It put the focus on increasing brownfield development and on better-quality design. It shifted the emphasis significantly in that way, and gave a strong thrust towards sustainability objectives, all of which I stand byand I hope that the House would do the same, because they are important measures of quality in development. We should be trying to achieve those objectives to ensure that inappropriate, poor-quality and badly designed development proposals are rejected, and that good-quality appropriate developments on garden sites are supported. The House should be adopting that approach.
	The hon. Lady has, over many years, found every opportunity to oppose housing developments. She has got into that mode again, although she tried to qualify it, as I implied, by saying that she was in favour of lots more housing, but did not agree with the Government's proposals and was worried about where the housing would be, what sort it was and how it would be built. Those are precisely the arguments that allow her to sit on the fence and say, I do believe in more housing, to please the house builders, while at the same time saying, No, no. We will resist housing developments, to please the people in her party who remain viscerally opposed to new housing development.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there has been a slight error with the clock. I can give him one more minute.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I require less time than that.
	The hon. Lady paid lip service to the idea of more housing, but behind that was the continued opposition, using any means possible, to new housing development. I am afraid to say that the Opposition have revealed that they remain a party that is not seriously thinking about how new housing development should be promoted and supported where it is needed, but still has its old perspective on opposing housing. I hope that the House rejects their motion.

Andrew MacKay: Sadly, that was a characteristically disingenuous speech by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who, as a past planning Minister should know better. It was preposterous and beyond belief to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was in any way suggesting that people wishing to extend their housesadding porches, patios, sun lounges or whateverwould not be able to do so. I will return to that, but I thought that the record needed to be set right straight away.
	I am immensely grateful, as my constituents will be, to my hon. Friend for moving the motion. It is a specific and important issue that needs to be fully addressed. The person to whom we must be most grateful is my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has done so much on this subject. I recently addressed a public meeting in my constituency at which a resolution was passed that I should thank him, and I now do so publicly, on the Floor of the House.
	The reason why this is an important debate is that it affects so many constituencies. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) said, it affects Members in all parts of the House, and the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells has been signed by Members of all parties. The most telling interventions came from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), all of whom rightly pointed out that the problem is huge in their constituencies. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said to the Secretary of State, she has to do something to put it right.
	I represent a largely suburban constituency; it is not rural. We have had terrific development pressures; we have taken more than our fair share. Greenfield sites have been built on, and more will be built on in the next few years, to provide much-needed social and other housing. What desperately upsets my constituents, whether they live in Bracknell, Sandhurst, Crowthorne or Finchampstead, is building on gardens.
	That was when the Secretary of State showed that she is not yet up to speed with her brief. I am confident that when the Minister for Housing and Planning winds up the debate later she will correct the record and be more positive. My constituents will be appalled at the Secretary of State's saying, Oh, this is just something about building between houses. That is not at all the case. We are talking about developers offering huge sums of money to people, one after another, to have their usually modest bungalows or houses knocked down so that the site can be redeveloped as a block of flats. Those blocks of flats are not of sufficient density to lead to any more social housing, so people in Bracknell Forest borough and Wokingham unitary authority who are on a long housing waiting list are not helped at all. The flats take a long time to sell or let, and they completely change the nature of the area in which they are built. They put terrific strains on infrastructure and are not wanted.
	To answer the right hon. Member for Greenwich and WoolwichI think that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove came to this conclusion too, although he took a little time about itwe need to give powers back to local representatives. Again and again, local residents oppose an application to build a block of flats on a site where property already exists. They are supported by their locally elected representativesthe Member of Parliament, the town or parish council and the borough council, and the planning authority turns down the application. What happens then? We all know that, again and again, the developer appeals to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State and her inspectors come down in favour of the developer. We are left to pick up the bits and pieces.

Helen Goodman: The right hon. Gentleman has explained the problems in his constituency very clearly, but he appears to suggest that people are compelled to sell that land. Some of his constituents, however, make money by selling land to developers, thus destroying the neighbourhood for their friends and neighbours. Can he explain that anomaly?

Andrew MacKay: The hon. Lady has a distinguished record as an academic, so I am surprised by her intervention. We both live in the real world. If someone was offered half as much again for their property they would need a strong moral compass to refuse. We must ensure that local elected representatives make the final decision on what is built, as they will be held accountable for their decision when they seek re-election. If I may say so, the hon. Lady's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was much better than her intervention on me. She said that development could not take place in the hamlets in her part of the north-east, which caused unnecessary development elsewhere. If power were restored to her local planning authority and people wanted development in the hamletsshe suggested that they didthat development would take place. If elected representatives get it wrong on planning and do not provide sufficient housing, or if they allow unreasonable and intrusive development that people do not want, they will be slung out at the next election. Democracy works well because it concentrates the minds of elected politicians, and that is what we want to do.
	May I return to my constituency to illustrate the strength of feeling on the issue? There have been two public meetings in Crowthorne, which is not a very big place. More than 500 people attended the first meetingas politicians, we do not often attract such attendancewhich I started to address inside the Morgan centre. However, the organisers were worried that many people were waiting in the crush outside, so I had to go out in the dark and address them in the recreation ground. It was like Gladstone and Disraeli again! The second public meeting was as full as the first, and it was attended by representatives of the other main political parties in my constituency. Everyone was united at that non-political event. It was characteristic of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to play party politics but, mercifully, the Labour representatives behaved much more responsibly at that meeting. That is not surprising, however, knowing them and knowing him.
	Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister for Housing and Planning responded to an initiative in Crowthorne. Local planning officials who came to the public meetings said that a village design statement would be helpful, so a group of hard-working independent people who had not taken part in objections to the development spent a great deal of time preparing such a statement for Crowthorne. It is extremely impressive, and the planners say that it will be made available to developers and other interested parties. It defines Crowthorne in a neutral toneit is neither pro nor anti-developmentand I would be grateful if the Minister told the House how much weight can be given to that statement, if she accepts my word that it is neutral and extremely professional. Will her inspectors, as well as the planning authority, take note of it? Bracknell Forest borough council and Wokingham unitary have both assured me that they will take it into account.
	I want to end as I began, by arguing that the definition of brownfield sites must change. Brownfield sites are derelict; they are industrial or commercial developments that are no longer used. They are just outside redeveloped inner-city areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made clear. They are not the gardens of existing houses. We want the definition to be tightened and changed. We also want an indication from the Minister and the Secretary of State that the democratically elected local politicians on planning authorities, and local residents, will be listened to far more than they are at present. If the Minister can give me that assurance when she winds up, I will leave the House tonight a very happy Member.

Margaret Moran: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), I had anticipated that this debate would be much more wide-ranging than the motion on the Order Paper and would tackle serious housing issues. I welcome the Government's amendment, which has widened the terms of the debate.
	This debate appears to be a fig leafor any other kind of leafto cover the lack of Opposition policies for tackling issues such as homelessness and overcrowding. I hope that we will hear what we were all listening for: a full assurance from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that she agrees with the Government's targets for increases in the supply of affordable housing, which is so desperately needed in areas such as my Luton constituency. There is a crisis in areas such as mine, where we have no option to build outside my area.
	I do not recognise as accurate the hon. Lady's portrayal of areas around inner cities that are simply lying in wait to be redeveloped. In my constituency, those areas are being, and have been, developed. We have no land for new building inside our conurbation; no infill development opportunities are available.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend has expressed her thoughts on such areas of land, which it is claimed exist outside city centres in the south; as she said, they do not exist in practice. Might that therefore mean a Conservative party policy of building new towns throughout the south of England, and does she consider that an appropriate way to develop new housing there?

Margaret Moran: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I should be very interested to hear the response of the hon. Member for Meriden, because we deserve some serious answers, instead of the rather fantastical proposals that she advanced as so-called solutions.
	The crisis is imminentit is upon us now, given the urgency of the problem of homelessness and overcrowding. There are 3,500 people on the housing waiting list in Luton. Some 60 per cent. are homeless, 20 per cent. are applying for a transfer, and the remaining 20 per cent. will never see the light of day in terms of housing. As of the last financial year, the council was receiving 130 housing applications per month. In addition, huge numbers of people are spending more than a yearsometimes two yearsin temporary accommodation. The overcrowding crisis is such that I regularly see in my constituency office surgeries families of six or more who are living in two-bedroom flats. How can those families survive in those conditions?
	Opposition Members' solution to the problem is a flight of fancy; I want to talk about the reality. Throughout the country, some 900,000 children are living in similarly overcrowded conditions. Ethnic minority communities such as the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in my constituency are seven times more likely to experience overcrowding than other communities, but the problem ranges across every community in my constituency. Overcrowding has an incredible impact on the health of those families. A survey by Shelter found that 90 per cent. of the families questioned felt that overcrowding was damaging their children's health; 93 per cent. of the severely overcrowded families surveyed said that they were experiencing depression, anxiety or stress; and 80 per cent. felt that the overcrowding experience was having a detrimental effect on their children's chances of a good education, because there was simply nowhere for them to do homework, or to find space for playing or learning. The life chances of generations of children and families are affected by overcrowding.
	The hon. Member for Meriden dismissed the idea of extensions to houses, but for many of those families, it is their only way of getting some small additional space. In addition to the short-term solutions to overcrowding that have been mentioned, we need to consider greater opportunities for extension of housing. That is happening in the owner-occupied sector and it is what most of us do if we own our homeswe build a loft and an extension. For people in the council and social housing sector, I have never understood why we cannot allow similar extensions within the social housing framework. The housing corporation in my area recently funded one such extension, built by Luton Community Housing, which I commend. In crowded areas such as mine that is often the only solution. I ask my hon. Friend to include that among the short-term solutions that we need to consider.
	The Government have commendable plans

Caroline Spelman: rose

Margaret Moran: I am sorry. Because of the time constraints, I cannot give way, although I would love to take the hon. Lady's intervention so that we could have a proper discussion.
	At last we have a Government who are committed to extending affordable social housing. The Chancellor has said that he will invest in social housing and make it a priority in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Moran: I am sorry, I do not have time.
	That target is to be commended. The fact that Luton is part of the south midlands growth area strategy is our lifeline of hope for the thousands of people on our waiting lists, who are desperate for a transfer because of overcrowding and other needs.
	One of the arguments deployed by the Opposition, apart from the garden issue, relates to infrastructure, which has been mentioned many times. Of course, the infrastructure needs to be in place for the sustainable development of affordable housing. In my area I cannot see any dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in terms of providing infrastructurerather, the reverse. They have put millions of pounds into transport infrastructure, such as the widening of the M1 and the introduction of the east Luton corridor and the Translink rail system, all of whichtogether with plans for the expansion of London Luton airport, which we look forward towill provide necessary transport and employment opportunities and other infrastructure measures that underpin the growth strategy.
	I welcome the Government's targets for the increased supply of housing200,000 homes by 2016but the recent excellent report from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Affordability and the Supply of Housing, goes further. We have not yet got the Opposition to agree the first target and I am asking for another, but let us be aspirational. Shelter believes that a further 20,000 homes are needed on top of the target, and I agree. It would be as well for the Minister in her winding-up speech to suggest imaginative ways of adding to the target.
	We need to consider short and medium-term solutions to crises such as those in my area. Many families cannot wait four, five, six or seven years for the growth strategy to become a realityfor new homes to be available. I mentioned extensions. Converting existing homes should also be considered, although it is not straightforward. We need to deal with the issue of VAT on the refurbishment and repair of existing homes. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has raised consistently with the Chancellor, as have I, the point that there is no level playing field for VAT. I welcome the Chancellor's moves to ensure a reduction in VAT to bring empty properties back into use, but we need to act further and faster to rehabilitate older properties, such as those in the most deprived area of my constituency, which takes me right back to what I was doing when I first entered the social housing field.
	We also need urgently to tackle the issue of empty properties. As I have said, there are 680,000 empty properties nationally, which is 3 per cent. of the housing stock. There are a number of empty properties in Luton, and we should take cognisance of the Government's existing target to reduce long-term empty properties by 25,000 by 2010, which would be a good start. The Empty Homes Agency has said that we need to be more ambitious given the scale of the crisis, and it has suggested the target of a 50 per cent. reduction by 2010 in the number of properties empty for more than six months. We need to be that ambitious, because the crisis is acute for the families I see day in, day out in my surgeries.
	The Government have gone beyond even my expectations. The previous Tory Government smashed investment in housing year on year, whereas this Government are committed to the necessary investment. However, I ask Ministers to move a little further, given the urgent crisis faced by families in our constituencies.

Greg Clark: If you were to go down to Tunbridge Wells today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would be sure of a big surprise. You would progress through some of the most beautiful leafy roads in Britain, which look at their best at this time of year. If you were to walk from the station, you would come before long to Forest road, where you would see family homes built in the 1920s and 1930s. Those homes have mature trees and gardens that teem with wildlife. The surprise is that you would be looking at a brownfield site.
	An even bigger surprise is that those houses are under threat because of that definition. This is what happens: developers offer one of the residents a big cheque, and before very long the hoardings go up, the house comes down, the garden is ploughed up and the flats go in. In a short space of time, a road that has contributed to the character of an area for 50 or 60 years is replaced by a block of apartments and a parking lot. In those circumstances, the people who live next door think that the same thing will happen on the other side, so they panic and sell up. Within a short time, a domino effect ripples down such roads in my constituency and others like it, which completely changes the character of an area.
	The biggest surprise is that that process is happening not only in Tunbridge Wells and the leafy south-east, but across the country. When I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject four months ago, I did not know that it would attract e-mails, telephone calls and letters from all over the countryfrom Stockton-on-Tees to Bristol and from Cardiff to Rochdale. All the people who contacted me said that their local areas are being degraded, while the affordable housing that we need is not being provided. I accept the need for more housing and, in particular, for affordable housing. But I am concerned that such garden-grab developments are being used to avoid the affordable housing requirement, because they involve less than 15 units of housing. Such developments are displacing the development of genuine brownfield sites and robbing the poorer members of our society of their entitlement.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the threshold for including social housing should be lowered to, for example, six or eight units, which would mean that a fair share of social housing would be developed on all sites?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Unfortunately, I am an Opposition Back Bencher, but I hope that the Minister may pick up his suggestion in due course.  [Interruption] The hon. Gentleman and I have something in commonwe are fellow opposition MPs.
	The Secretary of State described our concerns as, in effect, a fiction, citing two reasons: first, that councils already have sufficient discretion to turn down such applications, and secondly, that the definitions have been consistent. I concede that the definition of brownfield sites has been around since 1985. However, it was never part of planning guidance, but merely a convenient way of recording statistics. Since then, two things have happened. First, the Government have introduced targets for building houses and for building on brownfield land. We all know that once one applies a target to a definition, that definition becomes important, which is why this definition is important now.
	Secondly, the Government have introduced higher density targets. In 1997, the average density of new build was 24 units per hectare; now, it is 42 unitsnearly twice as high. Under planning policy statement 3, that could increase to as many as 70 in urban areas. As they say, Do the math: if an existing home is to be replaced and those doubled, perhaps trebled, density targets are to be met, it cannot be done without the garden. There has been a material change in the environment.
	Confirming my perception, the Library, commenting on these changes, said:
	Taken together, those factors have encouraged local planning authorities to approve planning applications for urban sites where houses have large gardens. There was enough in the guidance to justify developers appealing any refusal of this type of application with every chance of success. In other words...the overall policy environment has changed as regards developing on gardens.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are truly to give local authorities the ability to make these decisions, perhaps they should not be overruled so often by a body that would not know the local area if it jumped up and hit it in the face?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that provides a useful opportunity to clarify the purpose of my Bill and the motion. We do not want to preserve in aspic every garden in the country but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said, to return to a situation whereby local authoritiesdemocratically elected representatives make case-by-case decisions.
	The Secretary of State suggested that the situation that we described was exaggerated, or even a fiction, almost as if our constituents were suffering from the delusion of the emperor's new clothes and imagining something that did not exist. A couple of months ago, the previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), said:
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has rebutted strongly the allegations that garden grabbing is going on. We do not take the accusations seriously.[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 234WH.]
	Our constituents take them seriously, as they are aware that it is going on. Last year's figures show that 15 per cent. of residential development is now on garden-grabbed sitesthat is, one in six new homes.

Jeremy Hunt: Does my hon. Friend agree that provided that local authorities are given the responsibility of finding housing for young people to help them to get on to the housing ladder, there is no problem in giving them the final decision, rather than an interim decision, on whether housing development should go ahead and housing densities should reflect the concerns of local people?

Greg Clark: I entirely agree. If we treat local people as infants and do not allow them any say but only to kick out against decisions taken from afar, it is no wonder that we see such pent-up anger in our constituencies. I trust the people in my constituency to make the right decisions. They want to have houses and flats for their children and grandchildren, but they want to preserve the character of the area. They are able to strike that balance, and I trust them on that.
	In introducing my ten-minute Bill and tabling an early-day motion, I was not trying to make a partisan political point. I believe that a mistake was made in the definition at a time when it did not matter, and we have an opportunity to correct it. The Minister for Housing and Planning can do that easily. All it requires is a change in the language of planning guidance. She can do it in PPS3. If she does that, she can look back on her tenure in the Department in the knowledge that she contributed something of lasting value to all our constituents. Hon. Members of all parties support thatwe are making a cross-party plea.
	If the Minister does not do what we propose, I fear that, in 30 years, we will look back on what has happened in the same way as we now look back on the destruction of some of our city centres, razed to make way for bland shopping centres. We will wonder why on earth we allowed it to happen. The Minister has a chance to prevent that, and I urge her to take it.

Andrew Slaughter: Like several of my hon. Friends, I am disappointed by the narrowing of today's debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was two years since the Opposition previously asked for a debate on housing. The debate before that took place four years earlier. In the past five debates on housing for which the Opposition called, I note an uncanny consistency in that all the motions contained the phrase, serious threat to the nation's green fields, or something similar. We have moved from that to a serious threat to the nation's back gardens. We are narrowing the debate all the time.
	I do not imply that the issue is irrelevant, but it is not the subject that an Opposition party that wished to set out its stall on housing would choose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) listed the many topics that we could consider. Even in the context of the motion, overdevelopment is an interesting subject and we could have profitably debated the fact that many developers try to overdevelop inner-city sites. However, the debate has been narrowed to such an extent that one has to ask why. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) suggested that the answer was shortage of policy. I would not go that far, but the Opposition display a reluctance to put any more than their toe in the water.
	The Opposition are obviously conducting another spurious green campaign. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State effectively demolished the argument in the motion by saying that brownfield development and the volume of green belt land have increased under Labour, that the percentage of residential land that is being developed has decreased and that local authorities have discretion in the planning process. None of the Opposition arguments makes sense and one must therefore ask why they have chosen the topic. I fear that it signals a return to dog whistle politics. It proclaims that, whatever the Conservative party says at the moment about being friendly and wanting to tackle the housing shortage, if people listen carefully, it is not genuinely in favour of development anywhere.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Slaughter: I would love to give way, but I am short of time.
	I have had the privilege of living in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for some 40 years and I remember when there was a Tory-Liberal coalition there from 1978-86. Not a single council property, save for sheltered housing, was built in that time. Under a Labour administration, 70 per cent. affordable housing was built in the borough. To revert to the point that appeared to trouble the Opposition spokesman, any development of five or more homes had to include an affordable element. That was such a contrast with neighbouring Kensington and Westminster. I am sad to say that we now have another Conservative administration in Hammersmith and Fulham. Already, in only two months, developers tell me that they are coming under pressure to reduce to a minimum the percentage of affordable housing in schemes.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is wrong about the mythical Harry Potter realm between the inner city and the suburbs, full of oases of brownfield sites that can be developedbut there are one or two, even in my constituency. In those places, the developers are being told, It's more difficult because of the Greater London authority and the 50 per cent. rulebut let's keep it down as much as we possibly can.
	More widely across London, the figures for social rented housing completions since 1998 speak far more eloquently than any of the words of the Opposition can. In Tower Hamlets, the figure is 3,902; in Hackney, it is 2,563; and in Hammersmith and Fulham, it is 1,587. Let us compare those figures with that of Richmond, at 628, and Wandsworth, at 492. A borough that is twice the size of Hammersmith and Fulham managed to complete only a third of the number of social housing units in that time. The only other connection to be made is that it is the Conservative boroughs that are building the smaller numbers of housing units, and the Labour boroughs that are building the large numbers. I wish that I had time to go through all the figures, because the same applies to the current round of housing allocation. It is absolutely shameful that while Hammersmith and Fulham is planning to build almost 1,000 units in the current two-year period, Wandswortha borough of twice the sizeis planning only 248.

Caroline Spelman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Slaughter: I wish that I could, but I simply do not have the time.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was kind enough to praise a development in Hammersmith and Fulham in a speech that he made earlier this year. It will therefore be of concern to him that every affordable housing development in Hammersmith and Fulham between 1986 and 4 May this year was opposed by the Conservatives in that borough. That is the truth about Conservative housing policy. We have heard Don't build it on greenfield sites, and we are now hearing Don't build it on brownfield sites. The Conservatives' consistent policy is Don't build it. That is the message that comes through loud and clear. They clearly think that they are popular, but they need to be clear that the dog whistle cannot go off pitch, because certain groups of people might be listening to it.
	There are families with four children living in one-bedroom flats in my constituencythis is beginning to sound like the four Yorkshiremen sketchbut I cannot imagine that the Conservatives would be too concerned about them. However, they might be a bit more concerned about the young professionals and first-time buyers who are also desperate for accommodation, but who cannot get on the housing ladderalthough the Conservatives did oppose the introduction of home sellers' packs. They might also be concerned about the young families who are trying to trade up, but who have little chance of doing so in London. We need a better intermediate housing market for those people. The Conservatives are obviously not even concerned about the empty-nesters who are selling their properties to developers so that they can get a pension out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) pointed out.
	I would advise the Conservatives to listen more carefully, although I would not advise them to orchestrate another debate on this subject within the next five or six years. The more we hear about the detail of their housing and planning policies, the more hollow they ring. Perhaps that is why they pulled the original subject for their debate and replaced it with this fig leaf of a debate instead. The Conservatives' policies ring hollow because of their real opposition to the building of housing, particularly affordable housing, and the fact that they have nothing to put in its place.

Michael Gove: We have had a good debate this afternoon and passions have been engaged on both sides of the House. That is hardly surprising, because this subject goes to the heart of the central political question of our timehow do we maintain and enhance our citizens' quality of life?
	I should like to pay particular tribute not only to the Members who spoke in the limited time available, but to those who intervened, often to powerful effect. I should like to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Castle Point (Bob Spink), for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), all of whom paid eloquent testimony to the way in which the Government's policy denies their communities the types of housing and development that they need.
	The motion has attracted support from across the House, and I also want to pay particular tribute to the interventions by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). All three of them emphasised one of the weaknesses at the heart of Government policy. Given the way in which urban green spacegardensis classified as brownfield land, developers who should be encouraged to move towards genuine areas of desolation cherry-pick garden sites for their housing developments instead. As a result, the admirable aim behind the Government's policy, and our policy, which is to encourage urban regeneration, is undermined by an unfortunate misapplication of an originally well-intentioned policy.
	As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), no great legislative change is requiredan edict from the Minister for Housing and Planning could change a situation that, unfortunately, leads to the perverse outcomes to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and other hon. Members have referred.

Anne Main: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: No, I will not give way at this stage, but I thank my hon. Friend.
	As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), there is a consensus in the House on the need for new homes. That consensus has been led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), both of whom have made speeches recently stressing the need to increase housing supply in this country. The Government, in talking about increasing supply, have always concentrated on quantity, but unfortunately they have lost the plotindeed, they have lost the garden ploton quality. The debate provides an opportunity for the Government to make a fresh start and to show that they believe that, when encouraging developmentthe right sort of developmentwe must take account of people's need to ensure that there is appropriate urban green space.
	Talking of changing policy, I was particularly interested in some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State in her speech. She talked about the need to take tough decisions on housing. I pay tribute to some of the tough decisions that she has taken in her role as the MP for her constituency. In March 2005, she supported residents who opposed plans to build 200 new homes. In 2004, she supported residents in a successful campaign to stop 30 new flats being built in an area of Bolton. The year before, she played a leading role in blocking proposals for a block in the same area. In 2002, she fought against plans to build new homes in West Horton. Two years earlier, she celebrated with residents after she had blocked a proposal for 600 new homes. In 1999, she played a pivotal role in blocking proposals to build 1,100 new homes in her constituency. Indeed, Margaret Rothwell, the chairman of Bolton's planning committee, said:
	in my experience, whenever a group of residents in her constituency oppose a development, she always backs them.
	That is an interesting record, but I come not to condemn the Secretary of State, but to praise her for defending the interests of her constituents, because that is what the motion is aboutrestoring to local communities the chance to shape their own environment.
	The call put forward in the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells has attracted formidable cross-party support. I offer the Minister the chance to join that progressive consensus today. Forty of her colleagues and several senior Liberal Democrats have said that the motion is important, because they recognise that urban green space is good for the nation's health, good for the environment and good for biodiversity.
	The  British Medical Journal has emphasised how good green space is for our health. It pointed out that in environments with a high level of greenery, there is three times the level of physical activity and 40 per cent. less obesityboth form targets that the Government want to encourage, yet their policy works against doing so.
	On the environment, the World Health Organisation in its recent report Green cities, blue citiesI do not know why it chose that title, but I can only commend it to the Housesaid that where there is extensive urban greenery, not only are CO2 emissions absorbed, but oxygen is emitted. Tree leaves collect dust and the phyto-acids in trees act as bactericides. Our urban green space plays a key part in ensuring that our environment is cleaner.
	On biodiversity, the university of Sheffield, in a recent study, pointed out:
	Gardens are brilliant for wildlife. Gardens are England's most important nature reserve.
	However, under this Government, that nature reserve is increasingly being concreted over.
	At the heart of the debate is the question of local accountability, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). At the moment, the combination of the Government's policies denies local autonomy over not just the designation of gardens as brownfield land, but density targets. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, the Library, which is independent, has recently drawn attention to the fact that that perverse trend has gathered pace under this Government. It pointed out that
	the 2000 PPG3 contains pressure to increase density of development, which reads back into greater pressure to develop urban gardens... This has been combined with increased housing targets in the South of the country... those factors have encouraged local planning authorities to approve planning applications for urban areas where houses have large gardens.
	The Library concludes:
	There was enough in the guidance to justify developers appealing any refusal of this type of application with every chance of success.
	In other words, local communities are robbed of control over their own environment because of the Government's policies.

David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: Not at this stage.
	The situation is likely to become still worse because of the changes to planning policy guidance note 3 in the new planning policy statement 3, which increases the density pressure. We recognise that, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) pointed out, some communities will want sensitive garden and infill development, and we believe that communities in which there is strong popular backing for such development should be allowed to go their own way. The problem with policy at present is that local autonomy is denied, and communities that wish to resist development are robbed of the power to do so.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) congratulated us on raising an important issue and, a second later, said that he was disappointed that we had selected this subject for debate. I am used to hearing Liberal Democrats saying different things to different audiences, but that was an example of one Liberal Democrat saying different things to the same audience. All I would ask the hon. Gentleman is: why have the Liberal Democrats not used any of their Opposition day debates to discuss housing and planning issues in the past? Let me give the House an assurance: I will talk about housing and planning whenever the Government give me an opportunity, and I shall be delighted to use any opportunity that may be extended by the Minister or the Secretary of State to hold the Government to account for their failure to deliver on their housing targets.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden why she had not talked about rural housing affordability, supply generally or location. In fact, my hon. Friend explicitly mentioned all three. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of football analogies; let me give him such an analogy. He took his eye comprehensively off the ball, and scored a series of own goals. [Hon. Members: Very funny!] I am grateful for those generous words.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), whose commitment to housing and planning is well known, made a fascinating speech. He understandably referred to the regeneration in his constituency, which in many cases I would applaud, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out, much of the investment there was due to the millennium dome. Given public investment on that scale, I am not surprised that there has been urban regenerationbut I doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the level of public expenditure in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as a result of the dome to apply in the constituencies of the rest of us.
	The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that we were opposed to patios and extensions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, it is unfortunately the changes to council tax that the Government are contemplating that will discourage people from enhancing their homes as we would like them to do. Our policy would enable local authorities to allow precisely such enhancement.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), with his customary authority and sensitivity to the needs of his constituents, said that local residents' opposition to housing development in their area was continually ignored by the planning inspectorate, which is an unfortunate example of increased centralisation under this Government. He emphasised that local elected representatives needed to be able to decide. That is at the heart of our argument.
	The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) raisedwith admirable eloquence and claritythe problem of overcrowding. In particular, she drew attention to its seriousness among black and ethnic minority people. I agree with her that we need to address the problem. Indeed, I have had the opportunity to make the point in Westminster Hall. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in pressing the Minister to change the statutory definition of overcrowding, so that we have a more appropriate benchmark for government policy in the future. I also hope that she will join me in recognising that it was under the Conservative Government that we succeeded in increasing the amount of social housing that was supplied, and that under the present Government the amount of social housing released and supplied has diminished.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wellswho deserves enormous credit for having introduced a ten-minute Bill, which a Government Whip, sadly, tried to strangle the other dayspoke with passion, fluency and great intellectual authority about the perversity of encouraging development on urban green space when the original brownfield designation was intended to ensure that industrial land was redeveloped. He pointed out, crucially, that for those of us who believe in creating more social and affordable housing, infill and garden development of the kind that we are seeing does not trigger the requirement to provide such housing that is laid down in the Government's regulations. That point was backed up by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
	The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) spent most of his speech saying that he wished we had had another debate. Given the rest of his comments, I understand and sympathise with his desire to speak on a different motion. He did not directly address any of the concerns raised by his hon. Friends who signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.
	In voting for the motion, hon. Members will be standing up for the sort of spacious domestic environment that gives families the chance to enjoy a decent quality of life. We will be standing up for biodiversity and urban green space against policies that perversely encourage insensitive development. Most importantly of all, we will be standing up for local people, local autonomy and local government, against centralised edicts that rob people of control over their communities.

Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the height of insolence and bad manners to the Chamber that the Secretary of State, who responded at the beginning of the debate, is not here to listen to the wind-up or to the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point.  [Interruption.] However, the Secretary of State has just arrived. I would not use the term insolence, but those who lead off a debate should return for the wind-up speeches. It is a strong tradition of this House, and it should be observed.

Yvette Cooper: We have had a wide-ranging debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) raised issues to do with environmental standards for housing, about which I agree. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out some of the rather absurdif unintendedconsequences that the Opposition motion would have for extensions, which would be regarded as brownfield development.
	The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) asked about village design statements. I shall be happy to respond to him in more detail, but I assure him that we support those statements and want to give them a stronger role in the new planning guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) talked about the serious need for new homes in her constituency.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) raised a variety of points, and I shall respond to many of them in due course. However, he raised an important issue when he said that small housing developments do not include affordable housing. I agree that that is a significant matter, and it is one of the factors supporting the introduction of the planning gain supplement that may be more appropriate for smaller sites.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) raised some important points. I was very concerned by what he said about the attitude towards affordable housing of the new Conservative-controlled council in his area. That is a serious problem for people in his constituency.
	Opposition Front Benchers touched on a range of issues to do with density and planning guidance. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that the Government make no apology for saying that we think that density should be greater. For many years, low-density executive developments have taken up large areas of greenfield land, and it is simply not true that one cannot build at relatively higher densities and still include gardens or wonderful designs.
	I turn now to the main issues in the debate. The Opposition have called for an end to building on back gardens, but we need be clear about the facts. In 2005, 14 per cent. of new homes were built on residential land.  [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members have made their points, and I want to respond. That figure includes homes built on the footprint of previous buildings, and is not confined to homes built on drives or back gardens. In 1990, in contrast, 20 per cent. of new homes were built on previously developed residential land. Therefore, the proportion of new homes being built on previously developed residential land is lower today than it was in 1990.

Greg Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Greg Clark: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. He should remember, when he intervenes on a point of order, that the wind-up speaker has only 10 minutes and that he is interfering with that time.

Greg Clark: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that the Opposition were arguing for development

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman there. These are matters for debate and rebuttal. He must take his chances in these situations.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House, but I now have very little time to respond to the many points made in the debate.
	It is certainly true that this Government have increased the emphasis on the use of brownfield land. We make no apology for that, as the result has been a renaissance in our cities and towns, the regeneration of many abandoned industrial sites and a substantial reduction in the amount of greenfield land needed for development. According to the urban taskforce, 90 people were living in the heart of Manchester in 1990; today, 25,000 people live there and the city is thriving as a result. The proportion of new homes on former industrial and commercial sites has more than doubled since 1997 as a result of the measures we have taken.
	Members have raised specific issues about brownfield categorisation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins): the issue should not be about blocking whole categories of development as either greenfield or brownfield, but about quality and appropriateness. It should also be about meeting needs. Opposition Members must recognise that we need to make sure that we meet the needs of the next generation for homes. To listen to some of them talk about flats and the problems of developing flats, we would think that flats was a dirty word. They need to recognise that it is not planning definitions and Government requirements that put pressure on their constituencies, but need and demand for housing. We all have an obligation to respond to that.
	I agree that we need to strengthen the focus on quality and design both of buildings and of their neighbouring environment. That is why we set out in December new consultation on planning guidance, which states clearly:
	New development should be of high quality inclusive design...The key consideration should be whether a development positively improves the character and environmental quality of an area and the way it functions.
	It also states:
	Although residential gardens are defined as brown field land this does not necessarily mean they are suitable for development.
	Local authorities will have a clear obligation to look at quality, but also to provide land for the homes we need.
	Given the passion of Opposition Members, I looked up their contributions to the planning policy consultation. Unfortunately, they said nothing because they did not respondso much for their apparent commitment to improving the location and planning of housing. However, I suspect that that is not what the debate is really about. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order when there is a severe limit on Front-Bench speeches. I note that he tried to intervene on several occasions, so I hope that he does not want to make that point as his point of order, as I shall stop him.

Gerald Howarth: My point of order is that the Minister has just said that she received no responses

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can find an opportunity to take that up with the Minister at a later stage.

Yvette Cooper: To be fair to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I am happy to clarify the point. We received no responses from Opposition Front Benchers on that issuenor from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, who has made such a point of debating it in this place.
	That is not what the debate is really about; it is about the fact that the Conservatives still oppose new housing. They still do not accept the fact that we need 200,000 new homes every year if we are to meet the needs of future generations. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has not only said that she will refuse to agree to the 200,000 additional homes we need, but has also told  The House Magazine that she thinks 140,000 new homes is too many. We are already building more than 140,000that number is not too high.

Caroline Spelman: I realise that the hon. Lady is short of time so I am grateful to her for giving way, but her point about our opposition to new homes cannot be squared with the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that I supported the proposal of the Conservative-controlled council in my borough to build new homes.

Yvette Cooper: And the hon. Lady still will not agree that we need 200,000 more homes.
	Conservative Members are still not facing up to the difficult question of where new homes should be built. They will not support the additional homes that we need and they will not support the additional funding for infrastructure, because they keep opposing anything like a planning gain supplement. They do not want new homes in the suburbs; they do not want them in the countryside either, where they want even more green belt to protect villages and towns. They do not want new homes on industrial land. The hon. Lady said in the  Western Morning News that she objected to the 60,000 homes on former industrial and NHS sites because:
	The grim reality is that the homes are in less than desirable locations such as next door to mines.
	That is interesting information for those of our constituents who have lived next to mines for very many years.
	The Conservatives do not want new homes in Surrey. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is one of 15 Tory MPs to sign an early-day motion opposing house building in Surrey. They do not want new homes in Essex eithereven more of them signed an early-day motion about that; nor do they want them in West Sussex, Hertfordshire or anywhere in the south of England, which is where they propose to cut the number of homes, not to increase them.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes that the definition of previously developed land in draft Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) was first introduced in 1985, and that the proportion of residential development on previously developed residential land is now significantly lower than it was at that time; believes that more land needs to be made available for housing in future to meet rising demand and deliver sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities and environmental sustainability in towns and cities; further believes that local authorities need to bring forward appropriate land with proper regard for sustainability, local environment and quality of design within existing communities as well as new developments; further notes that draft PPS3 includes tools and powers for local authorities to turn down inappropriate development in gardens as well as other areas; and commends the Government's policy to make better use of land for new homes by increasing the proportion of housing on previously developed land from 56 per cent. in 1997 to 73 per cent. in 2005 and provide greater protection for greenfield land as a result.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Human Tissue

That the draft Human Tissue Act 2004 (Persons who Lack Capacity to Consent and Transplants) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 24th May, be approved. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Education and Training Key Competences

That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Letter from the Department for Education and Skills dated 9th May 2006 relating to the draft recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning; and supports the Government's view that the Recommendation will provide a useful, non-binding, common point of reference for Member States, either when choosing to undertake their own reforms of education and training systems or when learning about what has worked in other countries. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

References

Alan Beith: I present a petition from my constituent, Mr. George Hamilton, of Tweedmouth. Mr. Hamilton was employed by Borders regional council as an assistant head teacher at Duns primary school for 12 years. Subsequent to that employment, in 1988 he applied for a teaching post elsewhere but was unsuccessful. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 he has obtained the file on his case held by the local authority. It includes the reference sent by the assistant director of education to the head of the school to which he had applied, and other documents. He challenges and objects strongly to statements in those documents and to the terms of the reference.
	The petition states:
	Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House will urge the Government to introduce legislation requiring a former employer, named as a referee, to provide an accurate, balanced and fair reference;
	That any allusion to the former employee must not be vague;
	And that all statements, if challenged, must be substantiated by the former employee's personal records, accurately and truthfully compiled.
	And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Felstead Close

Bob Spink: It is fitting that I should present the following petition, given our debate on the need to stop the wholesale development of gardens. It rightly objects to such development, which causes irreparable damage to neighbourhood character and cohesion, and threatens urban biodiversity. I congratulate Ken Marshall and his immediate neighbours who have signed the petition on behalf of the community, which suffers from garden grab development.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of the residents of Benfleet and others,
	Declares that the petitioners oppose the proposed development of a new domestic dwelling adjacent to 4, Felstead Close, Benfleet, Essex, on the grounds that it would cause overcrowding in an already crowded cul-de-sac, health and safety hazards in terms of access for emergency services, a danger to the local Infant School, extra traffic, noise and loss of privacy and would be detrimental to local residents' enjoyment of their homes.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to refer the matter to Castle Point Borough Council, and urge the Council to reject the application.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Seroxat

Stewart Hosie: I take enormous pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. D. Scott, from Dundee, who calls for the precautionary principle to apply to the prescription of Seroxat. He points out that many people who are prescribed Seroxat believe that they suffer side-effects, including aggression, fatigue, agitation and suicidal thoughts. Others suffer severe effects on withdrawal. He observes that a large amount of information on those side-effects is in the public domain, and he demonstrates the requirement for immediate action, including a moratorium on the prescribing of Seroxat to new patients.
	The petition
	Declares that there is deep concern about the side effects that many people believe that they have suffered from being prescribed the drug Seroxat.
	Further declares that the Health Select Committee should carry out an investigation into the drug and its possible side effects.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to place a moratorium on the prescription of Seroxat to new patients until a review has been carried out on the large body of evidence which now exists concerning the side effects of this drug.
	 To lie upon the Table.

REDWATCH WEBSITE

Angela Eagle: After recent local elections, one of my constituents, Mr. Alec McFadden, was subject to a sudden violent attack at his home in front of his two young daughters. A stranger called at the house, and tried to barge his way in when the front door was opened. My constituent fought to keep him out while he was punched and hit on the face. His oldest daughter had the great presence of mind to call the police as the struggle continued at the front door. Thankfully, the police arrived at the scene within two minutes, but the man fled, leaving my constituent covered in blood. He had not been punched at all, but knifed about the head, arms and face. He had to attend the accident and emergency department at Arrowe Park hospital to receive treatment for his wounds. Goodness knows what would have happened if his assailant had got into the house.
	Mr. McFadden is a well-known trade union activist who has just co-ordinated the campaign against the British National party in the north-west. His activism in the anti-fascist movement ensured that his name, home and workplace addresses and photograph feature on a nasty, extreme right website called Redwatch.

Ben Chapman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a matter that both affects a particular individual and constitutes a broad policy concern? Her constituent was targeted by that website, but the people of the Wirral generally are outraged by it.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right that there is widespread outrage on the Wirral as a result of the attack on Mr. McFadden.
	That nasty, extreme right website is called Redwatch, and it carries hundreds of entries on anyone the authors believe should be intimidated or attacked. Indeed, there can be no other reason for providing that information, given the context in which it appears on the site.

David Taylor: A quick perusal of the site shows that some of that material is offensive and some is bonkers, as it speaks of
	the struggle against the spread of Marxist lies in the UK.
	Although the site shows every indication of being created by people with a tenuous grip on reality, does my hon. Friend agree that they cannot escape its implications by including the disclaimer:
	I understand this web site contains no threats nor is it intended that the material should be used for any unlawful activity?
	They cannot do so, as the site targets individuals, incites hatred and encourages violence.

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for his intervention. The police ought to be looking into that.
	The people targeted are routinely referred to on the website as scum and retards, and other epithets that I shall not sully the House by repeating. There appears to be a pattern of violence aimed at the individuals targeted by this website that cannot be simply a coincidence. The site appears to be registered to the Nazi group, Combat 18, and features advertisements for Aryan Nations and other extreme Nazi organisations. Much of the information on it appears to be sent in by BNP activists.
	The anti-fascist organisation, Searchlight, investigated the site in 2003 and found a sinister discussion group attached to it called the mole intelligence bureau, which includes the following call to arms:
	Redwatch has accumulated many names and addresses along with pictures of the targets, many of whom have had nothing done to them. Now is the time to start a proper campaign of violence and intimidation.
	That is a classic fascist intimidation tactic.
	Rigorous action should be taken in respect of such incitement. The police have the power to monitor extremist chatrooms for the purposes of ensuring that criminality is not being organised. I certainly hope that that mole intelligence bureau and any of its successor chatrooms feature on the radar of the police in the monitoring role that they must perform to defend law-abiding citizens exercising their democratic rights.
	Information from Searchlight details campaigns of intimidation, such as the firebombing of anti-fascist activists' cars and frequent death threats. A TUC dossier contains other examples of victims who have suffered from having their details posted on this hate site. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) has suffered death threats and had his constituency office vandalised as a result of his opposition to the BNP and other far-right organisations, as is well known. Other MPs and elected councillors from all political parties have had similar experiences, as have journalists, teachers and trade unionists.
	In 2004, following violent attacks on some of their members who also featured on that website, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Unison and the National Union of Teachers took a resolution to the TUC asking that the Government close down such sites. Since then, there has been a series of meetings at the Home Office and some parliamentary activity asking that action be taken to close the loophole that allows such internet-based incitement to continue seemingly unchecked.
	Although the Government have appeared sympathetic, it does not seem that much of practical use has been achieved in the intervening two years. Sympathy and words of concern are of course welcome, but I believe that preventive action is now in the public interest and is long overdue. What is certain is that both the incitement to violence and the attacks are continuing, despite the fact that the existence of this website was exposed and caused widespread concern several years ago.
	As a part of its response to the 2004 resolution, the TUC had a meeting with the then Home Secretary in March 2005, and he promised to consider what might be done to provide more protection from violent extremist websites. Although I understand that the general election then intervened, the TUC has still received no response. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister took this opportunity to update the House on the issue of hate websites, which appear to be operating with impunity.

Martin Salter: In studying Redwatch, my hon. Friend will have noticed that there is a link to a site operated by the same people called Noncewatchmonitoring the perverted scum who prey on our kids! It goes on to say:
	Nonces deserve nothing more than a decent British noose around their necks and a long drop. It's time to fight back and scare...these evil bastards that are a serious threat to our communities.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we go down the road of adopting the ill-thought-out Sarah's law by putting into the public domain the names and addresses of everybody on the sex offenders register, the people behind Redwatch will use that as an opportunity to trigger violent vigilante action? Does she further agree that the Home Office needs to bear that in mind very carefully?

Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with the important point that my hon. Friend makes. In dealing with such important and emotive issues, which often elicit understandable anger and disgust, we must be careful to protect innocent victims as well as children.
	When people are attacked for exercising their democratic right, it is important that the police realise that we are dealing with a threat to our democracy in which violent political intimidation plays a part, and that that is more serious than has been recognised. Will my hon. Friend the Minister agree to meet a delegation from the TUC and others to discuss how the threat can be dealt with adequately? Will he consider taking action to close down hate sites such as the one I have described?
	In early 2004 Baroness Scotland replied to a question in the Lords from Lord Greaves. He was immediately featured on Redwatch for his trouble in raising the matter. Among other things, the Baroness emphasised the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and mentioned the Internet Watch Foundation. Government responses to previous parliamentary questions about Redwatch have also referred to protection from racial and religious harassment. That is right, but the protection offered in the harassment statute does not appear to fit well with incitement to what I call political hatred which leads to violent criminal acts. That is what this hate website appears to be co-ordinating.

Katy Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one of the explanations for the difficulty in taking legal action is that many such sites are based abroad, it is appropriate to see what can be done by working with international partners and other Governments to ensure that such activities are stopped, and that our own legislation should be reviewed? Internet crime of all sorts is becoming a greater threat to us all, and it is clear that racists and fascists are taking advantage of loopholes to operate their websites with impunity.

Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which is very much to the point. She is right that any loopholes that exist because of the international nature of the internet and its rapid expansion need to be investigated carefully by the Government. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
	Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Internet Watch Foundation deals with child abuse, obscenity and racial hatred, but it does not seem to deal with other kinds of hatred, including inciting hatred for reasons of political beliefs, gender or sexuality? That is a loophole in protection in our domestic law, which the Government should move to close.
	Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Public Order Act 1986 applies to online material in the same way as it would to written material, notwithstanding any disclaimer on the website? Does he agree that the public order statute should offer protection from deliberately compiled lists of so-called targets, against whom incitement to violence is discussed in extremist chatrooms? If so, why has no action been taken to date to deal with Redwatch? If the Public Order Act is not appropriate to catch this sinister activity, will my hon. Friend undertake to review the protections that currently exist in domestic law to see how the gaps can be closed?
	Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fact that the hate website is hosted abroad does not shield it from prosecution if it incites violence, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) just pointed out to the House? Will he explain what action has been taken by the police and prosecuting authorities to deal with the threat that such hate content presents to law-abiding UK citizens? I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been at the forefront of the fight against images of child abuse appearing on websites and that he has been effective in working with internet service providers to close down UK-hosted sites and to filter criminal paedophile content from abroad. Will he now consider extending that sensible and effective approach to other extremist hate sites such as Redwatch? I note in the news today that an internet site that distributed links to illegal free music-swapping sites has been closed down by the Dutch authorities, because it encourages and facilitates lawbreaking. The time is right to end the scourge of hate sites in this country, which do the same thing for violent political ends.
	There will be those who argue that the existence of hate sites such as Redwatch is an expression of our freedom of speech that should be tolerated even if we disagree with it, but that argument is profoundly mistaken. When this House passed the Public Order Act 1936, Oswald Mosley's blackshirts were terrorising the east end of London and Hitler's brownshirts had brought him to power in Germany, and tolerance did not feature noticeably on their agenda. In that time of great peril, this House realised that there are limits to freedom of expression and that those limits lie in ensuring that ideologies of hate and violence are not given free reign. Such ideologies must be curbed in the interests of all and for the public good. That remains as true today as it was in the dark days that led to the second world war and the death of millions of innocent victims. Hate websites do not deserve the protection of the principle of freedom of speech when they seek to prevent others from exercising their democratic rights.
	My constituent was subjected to a vile attack in his own home for daring to be active in the battle against the far-right fascist threat in the north-west. His details continue to be posted on the Redwatch website alongside those of many other ordinary people who care enough to defend our democratic values. It is not tolerable that a practical instrument for criminal activity, violent assault and political intimidation should be allowed to remain undisturbed and easily available. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply, which I hope will outline what he intends to do to deal with that sinister threat.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. The importance of the debate is apparent, because many of my hon. Friends have chosen to attend. Informed and constructive discussion is key to tackling the menace of extremism, and today's debate presents an excellent opportunity to examine the issues around extremist websites that incite hatred. I will try to answer my hon. Friend's points as I make my speech.
	The Government deplore extremism of that kind, and strongly condemn websites such as Redwatch. I am sure that we all agree that although freedom of expression and open debate are cornerstones of British democracy, there is no place within the wide spectrum of British politics for organisations that encourage violence or intimidation against those whose views they disagree with. I was particularly sorry to hear about the cowardly attack last month on my hon. Friend's constituent, Alec McFadden. My sympathies are with him and his family, and I wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries.
	It may be helpful if I set this issue in the wider context of the Government's work on hate crime. Hatred, violence and incitement to violence are deplorable in any circumstances, but when that hatred is founded on some belief, difference or characteristic of the victim, as is the case with the Redwatch website and as it is with racists and homophobes, it is particularly deplorable.
	A Home Office working group is currently considering how to deliver a number of objectives in connection with the issue. The first objective is increasing the public's confidence in the criminal justice system and improving the way in which the criminal justice system responds to hate crime. The second objective is increasing the reporting of hate crime. The third objective is improving the proportion of hate crimes that are brought to justice. The fourth objective is improving the local response to hate crime, particularly in areas with high rates of hate crime. The fifth objective is increasing our knowledge base on hate crime.
	This work is currently focusing on crime motivated by race, faith and homophobic hatred, but the parallels with the topic that we are debating today are clear. A successful outcome, as measured against those objectives, will be a blow to the far right. Indeed, it could in some ways be regarded as indicative of positive changes in society that Redwatch feels so threatened by the anti-racism activists whom it targets that it feels the need to take such drastic action against them.
	Redwatch is a far-right website with roots in the Combat 18 organisation. It publishes personal details such as names, addresses and pictures of people whom it believes to be anti-racist activists or demonstrators.

Martin Salter: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a very real possibility that within the next 48 hours every Member who has taken part in this debate will find their photographs and details posted on the Redwatch site, as that is how these people operate?

Vernon Coaker: I do realise that, but as my hon. Friend has demonstrated in his constituency and in his political work, we will not be cowed as regards the views that we hold. Indeed, the freedom of expression that we have here is one of the hallmarks of our democracy.
	Many of the pictures that appear on the Redwatch website are taken at anti-racist rallies. Although there is no direct incitement to commit any criminal offence against the people publicised on the website, the language used to describe them is highly offensive and insulting, and the possible consequences very grave. The degree of intimidation that the website's targets feel as a result of being pictured or having their personal information published must be considerable. There must be a genuine fear of attack from supporters of the far right, spurred on by comments on the website.
	I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey that an arrest has been made for suspected public order offences relating to the Redwatch website, and a man is currently on bail pending further enquiries. Obviously, that is an operational matter for the police, and Members will understand that I am unable to comment further on that particular case.
	There is a framework of laws that may be used to tackle websites that incite hatred or publish threatening or abusive material. It is an offence to incite others to commit an offence such as assault or criminal damage. Under the Public Order Act 1986, it is also an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or to distribute threatening or abusive material with the intention of causing another person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against them. Under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, it is an offence for any person to behave in a way that they know, or ought to know, amounts to harassment or causes someone to fear violence. Under the same Act, victims of harassment may apply to the High Court for a civil restraining order. Such an order has in the past successfully been obtained by victims of animal rights extremists. It can include a requirement for the removal of information about individuals from websites.

Angela Eagle: I have a report of the arrest of somebody involved in the Redwatch website, which happened on 1 May last year. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the arrest that he mentioned is not that one, and that this man has not been on bail for a year?

Vernon Coaker: I cannot confirm whether that is the case, but I will clarify that and write to my hon. Friend with the information.
	It can also be an offence under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a website to publish a person's name and address if that information is not in the public domain. I want to respond to an important point that my hon. Friend raised. Anything that is illegal off line is also illegal online. Therefore, if a UK-based website publishes material that is not only offensive but illegal under the above framework, action can be taken against the person who owns the website, exactly as with somebody who might have published a leaflet or a poster. However, operators of some websites have been careful to try to avoid overstepping the conduct that the legislation has defined as criminal.
	The difficulty occurs when the website is hosted outside UK jurisdiction, as in the case of Redwatch, which is hosted in the United States. In those circumstances, we do not have the power to close down that website, or, in some cases, to prosecute the people responsible for it if illegal material was not distributed in or uploaded from the UK. However, the offence of inciting others to commit crimes would not be exempt from prosecution in those circumstances, regardless of whether the perpetrator had used a website hosted in a foreign jurisdiction. That is a genuine challenge, which calls for greater international co-operation and collaboration. We seek to do that whenever we have the opportunity, and we have initiated inquiries with the US Department of Justice to establish whether hosting such a website constitutes a breach of US law, regulations or industry good practice.
	For UK-based websites, there is positive co-operation between internet service providers in this country and law enforcement agencies. Examples of that are the acceptable use policies, which most service providers put in place. They vary between companies, but will generally enable service providers to remove material from their site not only if it is illegal but in other circumstances. They may include complaints from people whose details have been published without their consent.
	I can inform my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are present that I shall raise all those issues with the internet service providers the next time I meet them.

Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for his positive response. Will he ask whether the internet service providers can extend the protections that they apply to the use of abusive photographs of children to the sort of content that we are considering? If so, they could filter out and close down the websites that can be accessed from the UK if they contain such criminal content. That would be a great step forward. Will he meet a delegation from the TUC and others to discuss the prospect of making progress on this matter?

Vernon Coaker: As I said, I will raise all the issues that have been mentioned in the debate with the internet service providers the next time I meet them. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and a delegation, as soon as we can match diaries.
	I can also answer my hon. Friend's question about the Internet Watch Foundation. It has a remit to minimise the availability of potentially illegal internet content pertaining to images of child abuse hosted anywhere in the world, criminally obscene content hosted in the UK, and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK.
	It is for the police to investigate complaints and decide whether there is evidence that website operators have committed offencesfor example, because of the content of their websites or links between such sites and other harassment or attacks against individuals. It is the approach of the police that if any person becomes aware of any threatening, racist or other hate material on a website, they should report it to their local police force. It is vital to report such material; otherwise the police cannot investigate it. I would encourage the police to continue their vital work of enforcing the law in this respect.
	Looking to the future, the Association of Chief Police Officers is working with the Home Office and the police national high-tech crime unit and will review its position on that sort of crime.

Martin Salter: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has stated publicly that he would encourage the police to take action. Will he especially encourage West Yorkshire police to take action, given that Redwatch is based in Leeds and run by three individuals who are known to West Yorkshire police through a history of extreme political violence stretching back many years?

Vernon Coaker: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will be pleased to raise these issues with the police to see what their advice is on taking all these matters forward.
	The Home Office and police are also undertaking separate but related work on animal rights extremists' use of the internet. A consultative seminar with practitioner stakeholders is being planned, which will look at the current guidance to police forces and seek to agree procedures and identify any gaps. Issues raised by hon. Members in the course of this debate will also be taken on board at the seminar.
	I am aware that the TUC did indeed write to the then Home Secretary in June 2005, following a meeting in March that year. May I apologise for the fact that the TUC did not receive a response to that letter? That was an unfortunate administrative oversight. I assure my hon. Friend that the TUC will now be updated on the matter as soon as possible.
	I hope that I have been able to provide some assurance to hon. Members that the Government are committed to tackling hate crime and incitement to violence wherever it is found. In conjunction with our broader work on hate crime, we are planning to review and strengthen the police response to this type of activity, and to take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of the public.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.